The right to offend and the right to be offended

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Correct, you argue that people allow words to guide their reactions and that that can be based on misconceptions but not in the case that I posted above, which was in fact part of the bundle of things in the thread I mentioned.

Your argument of suppression or censorship of contrary evidence was wrong because he did pass the travel ban eo and other things that people were reacting to.

All I'm saying is that your argument doesn't always apply.

We have a perfect storm of a perpetually offended and attention mongering populace combined with unlimited access to an audience via social media. Widespread availability of Internet access was like giving nail guns to a room full of preschoolers. Hopefully people catch up before we all kill each other. I'm not optimistic.

a reply to: daskakik

Correct, you argue that people allow words to guide their reactions and that that can be based on misconceptions but not in the case that I posted above, which was in fact part of the bundle of things in the thread I mentioned.

Your argument of suppression or censorship of contrary evidence was wrong because he did pass the travel ban eo and other things that people were reacting to.

All I'm saying is that your argument doesn't always apply.

No, I specifically wrote that people are "susceptible to their emotions", not the words. You might have to go read it again. Either way, you can challenge me on the subject in that thread. This is an entirely different topic.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
No, I specifically wrote that people are "susceptible to their emotions", not the words. You might have to go read it again.

And their emotions can be stirred up by words. In some cases they are justified. That isn't superstition.

Either way, you can challenge me on the subject in that thread. This is an entirely different topic.

No, it was just an example in regards to the topic of this thread.

a reply to: daskakik

And their emotions can be stirred up by words. In some cases they are justified. That isn't superstition.

Sure it is superstition. Articulated sounds or writing on paper cannot be shown to stir anything, let alone the biophysical chemistry of a human being.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's a figure of speech.

ETA: When those words announce actions the emotions can be justified.

a reply to: daskakik

It's a figure of speech.

The fact that you can only describe it in figurative language says a lot. Try it in literal language.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It would take a devotion of a Buddhist monk living in cave not to get stirred up by anything.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Why? Can't you understand it?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

nooo. i dont think it works that way either

a reply to: daskakik

Any words can predicate actions.

Saying, "I love you" before pulling the trigger of a gun does not lessen the impact of the bullet.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Any words can predicate actions.

Saying, "I love you" before pulling the trigger of a gun does not lessen the impact of the bullet.

Saying "I'm going to kill you" while pointing a gun at them will cause most people to feel fear, it might also cause fear even without the gun. No superstition involved there.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Any words can predicate actions.

Saying, "I love you" before pulling the trigger of a gun does not lessen the impact of the bullet.

Saying "I'm going to kill you" while pointing a gun at them will cause most people to feel fear, it might also cause fear even without the gun. No superstition involved there.

Saying the words to a sonnet by Shakespeare while holding a gun will elicit the same fear.

originally posted by: yeahright
Widespread availability of Internet access was like giving nail guns to a room full of preschoolers. Hopefully people catch up before we all kill each other. I'm not optimistic.

You want my guns then you will have to pry it from my cold dead hands.

a reply to: daskakik

Why? Can't you understand it?

I can understand figurative language, yes. The point is, metaphorical speech is not literally applicable.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sonnets feel no fear.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I wasn't applying it literally.

I have already explained it. People feeling fear or other emotions from the announcements about government policy that affects them are justified. They are not being superstitious in thinking this and I'm not superstitious in believing that they have a legitimate cause for concern.

a reply to: daskakik

that was something.

a reply to: daskakik

I wasn't applying it literally.

I have already explained it. People feeling fear or other emotions from the announcements about government policy that affects them are justified. They are not being superstitious in thinking this and I'm not superstitious in believing that they have a legitimate cause for concern.

Again, I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. Again, no one argued otherwise.