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.

 

The right to offend and the right to be offended

page: 17
51
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

No it's my fault. I may have joined your conversation a little too late.




posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Oh it's ok.
Thanks for the discussion/debate. I've learned a few things.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

Does it not make sense, that we apply a similar filter to products that are based on speech? Does free trade mean we can put radioactive material in pillows and market them as high energy? Does free speech mean we should be able to tell people reptilian shapeshifters have secretly taken over the planet, and the only defense is to buy 30 years of food dehydrated food?


Free speech means free speech.

People here want to silence BLM because they consider what they say offensive.
Other people want to ban "draw Mohammad" contests because they offend Muslims.


People should be free to be offended over anything they want.

But being offended does not empower an individual with the right to silence others.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
You "get the feeling", "it seems"... If all you want to talk about is your feelings, we won't get anywhere. I still do not know what your point or gripe is, and you are at least 20 posts in.

I have stated my point a couple of times point blank. If you don't get it then you just don't get it.

My feelings are not even part of that point, they are random ideas thrown into a post as they pop up.

Why deflect from the fact that what you posted included the exact same thing that I had just posted. Why even bring up what may have been a bad word choice or crappy conjugation?



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




I have stated my point a couple of times point blank. If you don't get it then you just don't get it.


I guess there wasn't enough physical affection in your point. Yes, it was something to do with people reacting to justified concerns, and that is not superstition.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy




Free speech means free speech.


Yes it does, even verbal masturbation, like this thread, but it's getting hard to read because all the pages are stuck together.
edit on 11-4-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Seems like there was enough affection, so why act like you didn't know what the point was?

You calling people superstitious based on what you believe they are thinking is projection.

The statement that you quoted about people being "susceptible to hurtful language" doesn't even say that words physically interact with anything but that is what you seem to base your argument when you repeat "Articulated sounds and scratches on paper are unable to affect anything more than the medium they are printed on."



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: DBCowboy




Free speech means free speech.


Yes it does, even verbal masturbation, like this thread, but it's getting hard to read because all the pages are stuck together.


And you the little exhibitionist. Don't worry, there's more for you to feast your eyes on.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Seems like there was enough affection, so why act like you didn't know what the point was?

You calling people superstitious based on what you believe they are thinking is projection.

The statement that you quoted about people being "susceptible to hurtful language" doesn't even say that words physically interact with anything but that is what you seem to base your argument when you repeat "Articulated sounds and scratches on paper are unable to affect anything more than the medium they are printed on."


Because it was a strawman.

It's not projection. The notion that words are powerful span millennia.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Sure they are not forcing anyone to be civil, but being forced to self-censor for fear of retaliation, ostracism, threat, etc. is quite common.

Wait a minute, are you seriously legitimising reacting to words after you wrote like 5 threads about how words dont deserve their reaction?



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Ridhya

I've pointed that out to him a couple of times.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Because it was a strawman.

Not in every case.


It's not projection. The notion that words are powerful span millennia.

Who said powerful? Seems like people saying that words play a part and you specifically saying "I never said words do not play a part..." agree except that you insist that you don't.
edit on 11-4-2017 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 07:11 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I have the right to be offended by anything you say
offensive or not
I also reserve the right to take offensive to anything you say
offensive or not
at a later date of my choosing



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 07:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Ridhya




Wait a minute, are you seriously legitimising reacting to words after you wrote like 5 threads about how words dont deserve their reaction?


Is retaliation words? Is ostracism, threat and coercion words? No



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: DBCowboy

I have the right to be offended by anything you say
offensive or not
I also reserve the right to take offensive to anything you say
offensive or not
at a later date of my choosing





Absolutely you do.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Who said powerful? Seems like people saying that words play a part and you specifically saying "I never said words do not play a part..." agree except that you insist that you don't.

I said the notion that words are powerful span millennia. Unless you are thousands of years old, In no way does that even come close to saying you said words are powerful.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I said the notion that words are powerful span millennia. Unless you are thousands of years old, In no way does that even come close to saying you said words are powerful.

I didn't say that you said that I said.

I said people say that words have an affect and therefore play a part. You posted that you don't deny that.



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 07:42 PM
link   
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."
-Salman Rushdie



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

well he is a master at it



posted on Apr, 11 2017 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I said the notion that words are powerful span millennia. Unless you are thousands of years old, In no way does that even come close to saying you said words are powerful.

I didn't say that you said that I said.

I said people say that words have an affect and therefore play a part. You posted that you don't deny that.


Then why did you ask "who said that"? Do you mean a historical person?




top topics



 
51
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join