It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tyranny of the Listener

page: 2
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


whatever comes of speech after it is heard is the consequence of the agent of any subsequent action: the listener. Or you fellow reader?

-LesMis


Nope! What you say or write has an effect on people, whether you like it or deny it or not. Witness The Bible and Preachers.....the Koran and the Imams....the Torah or Talmud or whatever and Rabbis. All spewing rhetoric.


Tell me again how that is a benign activity that doesn't warrant the consequences it spawns. Please.




posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

If speech is not free, absolutely, neither are we.


And if the listener is not absolutely free to respond, how are we free?



What I wanted to argue was this: Though a speaker is to blame for uttering fallacy and falsity, the listener is always to blame for believing him. As soon as words leave a person’s mouth, they are no longer in the speakers dominion, no longer under his control or power. As a corollary, whatever comes of speech after it is heard is the consequence of the agent of any subsequent action: the listener.


So, the speaker is responsible for his words and the listener is responsible for his actions. I'll buy that as long as you agree that both should be free - because it sounds like you are saying there should be no response allowed (or at least no negative response) to what anyone says. That doesn't sound like freedom to me.

For example, if an employee says something publicly that affects the profit of the company he works for (people stop doing business with this company as a result of this employee's "free speech"), is the employer not free to fire him? Are the customers not free to stop doing business with the company?

If you are only talking about not being punished or detained by the government, I agree with you. If you are saying there should be no consequences of any kind to speech, I can't agree with that.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv




If you are only talking about not being punished or detained by the government, I agree with you. If you are saying there should be no consequences of any kind to speech, I can't agree with that.


I am not saying, nor have I said, there should be no consequence to speech. I specifically said there is no consequence to speech, for the exact same reasons I stated. It is a matter of simple physics. As I explicitly stated, any subsequent action is a consequence of the agent of that action.

Nowhere did I say that no response is allowed. My only point is that suppressing the rights of the speaker is in no way a fitting response to someone speaking. Speaking is not oppressive, but censorship is, for the exact same reasons I stated.

In matters of contract and obligation, such as in employment, if the employee disrespects or refuses to abide by said contracts and obligations, it is the right of an employer to fire him.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 07:34 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I like this topic, good work.

I think I'll quote you sometime on this too, there are some good statements in there I'll use.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope




In matters of contract and obligation, such as in employment, if the employee disrespects or refuses to abide by said contracts and obligations, it is the right of an employer to fire him.


Just curiously where would you stand on an issue as we see here in this thread ?



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So, long story short:

Saying something is saying nothing, but saying you can't say nothing is really saying something



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So, long story short:

Saying something is saying nothing, but saying you can't say nothing is really saying something


I'm not sure what that means. Saying something is saying something.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


whatever comes of speech after it is heard is the consequence of the agent of any subsequent action: the listener. Or you fellow reader?

-LesMis


Nope! What you say or write has an effect on people, whether you like it or deny it or not. Witness The Bible and Preachers.....the Koran and the Imams....the Torah or Talmud or whatever and Rabbis. All spewing rhetoric.


Tell me again how that is a benign activity that doesn't warrant the consequences it spawns. Please.


No. What you say or write has an effect on the medium, for instance the paper you write on.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No. What you say or write has an effect on the medium, for instance the paper you write on.

But, is the reason for censorship to keep the air from vibrating or keep paper from getting inked up?



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

You know what your problem is don't you?

You're trying to use words to say stuff

:-)



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Never looked at it that way. I always thought I wasn't using enough words.

Maybe I should just use stuff directly, like a 2x4 upside peoples heads.

Wow, so that is what "speak softly and carry a big stick" means. If Teddy was here to wack me in the noggin' I would have got that right away but since all we have are words...



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 11:30 PM
link   
talking about how words dont have any consequence while broadcasting yourself on a public forum. do you see what im saying? but the listening thing makes sense. to a point "buyer beware". the honus is on the customer to detect BS and backpedal where necessary. its almost as though people are being conditioned to be hypersensitive and defensive. a smokescreen perhaps.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 11:53 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

The reason for censorship is that people think words have an effect on others, so they silence the speaker and the words instead of giving themselves and others the skills to overcome their own superstitions.

Would you make a good censor?



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: daskakik

You know what your problem is don't you?

You're trying to use words to say stuff

:-)


No one said people do not use words to say stuff, so your argument (which is being very generous) is absurd.



posted on Jul, 3 2016 @ 11:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
talking about how words dont have any consequence while broadcasting yourself on a public forum. do you see what im saying? but the listening thing makes sense. to a point "buyer beware". the honus is on the customer to detect BS and backpedal where necessary. its almost as though people are being conditioned to be hypersensitive and defensive. a smokescreen perhaps.


Yes typing words on a forum often has the effect of words showing up in the forum. What you do with those words—your reading them, your understanding them, your thinking about them, your reaction to them, and any subsequent action you commit— is your own doing, not mine.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 12:38 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If people's superstitions about words causes them to react a certain way then, words are part of the cause. The other part would be the superstitions.

Being pragmatic, taking either one of them away would be effective.

You seem to be saying that it would be better to overcome the superstitions. Do you have a way to judge when everyone will have the skills to overcome their superstitions?

Then of course we have the question of whether the superstitions themselves cause harm and if not, which they wouldn't because they can't alter matter either, why do you want to suppress them?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Words are innocent, like black cats and the number 13 is. Black cats do not cause a person's superstition; they are mistakenly blamed for it. The upbringing, education, the indoctrination causes the superstition, not the black cat.

Sure, killing all black cats would remove that certain superstition, but as I said, it would be an injustice, not to mention a dangerous stupidity to do so.

When people quit blaming the words and the speaker for their own feelings and misunderstanding, finally take responsibility for their own sensibilities, then I might say they have overcome that superstition.


edit on 4-7-2016 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 01:01 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I was saying that the superstition is just as innocent as the words, and for the same reasons.

Blaming the superstition and the listener is just as bad as blaming the words and the speaker.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 01:07 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

A superstition is not innocent when it causes one to act a certain way.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join