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: 3
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

A superstition can manipulate matter?




posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

People are motivated by the content of their beliefs, yes. Blaming a cat is just as bad as blaming the person who kills cat because he believes they are evil or demons?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
People are motivated by the content of their beliefs, yes.

You mean words that bounce around their heads making them believe that that is what they are.

Just another group of words.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

If you want to call your own thoughts words, that's fine with me. Maybe you should ban them.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Words are vehicles for thought.

They carry a thought from one individual mind to another.
This is like the guns don't kill argument.
Which implies that anyone and everyone should be free to carry around a gun,
because everyone is mentally and emotionally stable,
With quick reflexes, a sharp sense of discernment, responsibility, and self discipline.
And (somehow) having your own guns will protect you from the abuses of power of your military, police, and government.
(just replace the "gun" with "word".)
It is built on a fallacy.

I prefer approaching the question from the direction of "Words have power. We need to be aware of that, consider our words and their potential effects upon the people who receive them. They are not to be thrown around haphazardly, or sent out without discernment. Learn to use your words responsibly.
Consider that some people are more vulnerable faced with words than others; consider which ones you give to children, to those who are ill, either mentally or physically, to those who have suffered trauma and can be impacted destructively by certain words. In public places, where there are many people and you do not know their specific weaknesses, do not pull out words which tend to be very emotionally packed."


In any case, like at gun clubs, people still gather in places to discuss all kinds of topics and points of view; taking their turns on the soapbox, and practicing the usage of words.
edit on 4-7-2016 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Aren't they what we are sharing with words?

Isn't overcoming beliefs (superstitions) the same as censoring words?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

I highly value your disagreement.

Yes, language does motivate people. But the motivating factor of language is oneself and one's own subjective understanding (or misunderstandings) of the language, the speaker, and the scenario in which it is occurring, and not the objective words, the speaker, nor the scenario.

For instance, if you saw Hitler today delivering the exact same speeches in the exact same manner, would you react the same as the people did in those days? I have a feeling you wouldn't, though that is an assumption. Rather, I think people would start flinging stones.

I remember when Noam Chomsky was labelled a holocaust denier in the Faurisson affair which occurred in France, when he defended the right of Faurisson to deny the holocaust. Chomsky made the succinct argument that free speech must extend to views we do not agree with, even if they are hateful and fallacious. France's hate speech laws are indeed hypocritical when they say they value free speech.

Though defended as a human right in every charter of human rights, only the US has come close to upholding freedom of expression, and even they haven't done good enough. Everyone else seems not to care, or in someway reduces it to the duty of a government, and not themselves.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Aren't they what we are sharing with words?

Isn't overcoming beliefs (superstitions) the same as censoring words?


Yes we can speak our thoughts. But my thoughts are not yours. Why would you censor me because of your beliefs?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:20 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So essentially your rant is about nothing and how little saying anything really means?

A BS thread about semantics rather than saying anything of substance.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:23 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

excellent post and well said. One of the best defences I've read for free speech.

thanks.

if I know how I would give you several stars



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Yes we can speak our thoughts. But my thoughts are not yours.

Never said they were. I said that thoughts are made up of the same stuff as words. Since the stuff that both of these are made of can't interact with matter, the logic that you use to say one is innocent must apply to the other. Yet here you are showing a double standard.


Why would you censor me because of your beliefs?

I wouldn't sensor you because of my beliefs. Society might advise ou to keep your thoughts to yourself because of other peoples beliefs.
edit on 4-7-2016 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: lortl
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So essentially your rant is about nothing and how little saying anything really means?

A BS thread about semantics rather than saying anything of substance.


A BS post with built on a straw man.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I obviously was not clear enough since you decided to not reply....let me try again....

The thread i linked was about how Switzerland decided not to let a family immigrate because they exercised their free speech and stood up for what they believed in....do you agree with the stance or in your opinion is the country stifling free speech ?...



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:31 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I apologize. I changed my post.
I had responded to the OP,
then gone back to read where the thread had been going since then, and felt like saying something else, a little more in sync with the current direction of thought and word (and whether they are the same thing).
That makes your response seem out of sync to readers. I am sorry.

I agree with you, it is the people themselves who determine the strength and impact of words upon themselves and their acts.
On the other hand, some people are stronger and more skilled at doing that than others.
So half of the responsibility lies with the sender. Just like throwing iron cannon balls to each other, I need to consider if the friend I am throwing it to has the strength to catch it, and throw it back, or whether they are just going to get hurt, or accidently hurt another.

So for me, that indicates a message entirely different from "words have no power"- but the exact opposite.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Never said they were. I said that thoughts are made up of the same stuff as words. Since the stuff that both of these are made of can't interact with matter the logic that you use to say one is innocent must apply to the other. Yet here you are showing a double standard.


You're the one saying words and thoughts are made up of the same stuff, not me. No double standard.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Haha lol, you actually got anything to offer or just more semantics and denial?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluesma

No apology necessary.

Yes, I agree that morally we should be wary of what we say around others. I am a huge proponent of decency and respect in matters of language. I also agree that people are unable to fully reign over their thoughts and emotions, and might react negatively because of them, and that because of them we should be cautious about what we say.

I do think, however, that an education that strengthens the ability to overcome one's own emotions and thought is more conducive to human rights than restricting or censoring speech.



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:41 AM
link   
a reply to: lortl

Do you have anything more to offer besides fallacy and a failure to represent an argument properly?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I obviously was not clear enough since you decided to not reply....let me try again....

The thread i linked was about how Switzerland decided not to let a family immigrate because they exercised their free speech and stood up for what they believed in....do you agree with the stance or in your opinion is the country stifling free speech ?...


I do not wish to discuss other threads. Sorry about that.

What speech were they exercising?



posted on Jul, 4 2016 @ 02:44 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Their right to govern their country as they wish



new topics




 
35
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join