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.

 

Reza Aslan calls for rape of congressman Todd Akin

page: 8
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Grambler




And yet here you are, calling for the chilling of these people free speech because you are accusing them of being snowflakes.


I've never called anyone a snowflake, and you can dredge up my entire posting history to prove it. All you've done is accuse others of "calling" for this and that, when no one has called for anything except those you are defending.


And show on this thread were the people you are criticizing have called people snowflakes.

I am lumped into people you are criticizing as I have criticized Azlan, so can you show me where I have called anyone a snowflake?

But its ok for you to make these broad accusations.

I enjoy your defense of free speech, but you are not a true advocate of total free speech.

You feel that people don't have the right to criticize Azlan. You are censoring these poeple, and so iot makes your defense of free speech hollow. You just want free speech you agree with.

I feel that people have the right to criticize whatever they want, so long as they are not violent or calling for jobs or legal action.

I am sorry that you are having trouble coming to grips with the fact that your criticism of people criticizing Azlan has a chilling effect that is in effect censorship of them, as per your own definition.




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's rather an extreme case, isn't it?

I'm not saying that in certain circumstances, as in the one you brought up, censorship and consequence can not closely resemble each other.

My calling those tweets "moronic" or "idiotic", or whatever are in no way calling for him to be forbidden to tweet ever again. But they are a consequence--rather a harmless one, I suppose, since I don't twitter, or tweet--of his words. Another consequence would be losing his job over this--he shouldn't--but he'd certainly still be allowed to tweet all day long his silly opinions just like everyone else in the twit-verse.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Grambler




And yet here you are, calling for the chilling of these people free speech because you are accusing them of being snowflakes.


I've never called anyone a snowflake, and you can dredge up my entire posting history to prove it. All you've done is accuse others of "calling" for this and that, when no one has called for anything except those you are defending.


And show on this thread were the people you are criticizing have called people snowflakes.

I am lumped into people you are criticizing as I have criticized Azlan, so can you show me where I have called anyone a snowflake?

But its ok for you to make these broad accusations.

I enjoy your defense of free speech, but you are not a true advocate of total free speech.

You feel that people don't have the right to criticize Azlan. You are censoring these poeple, and so iot makes your defense of free speech hollow. You just want free speech you agree with.

I feel that people have the right to criticize whatever they want, so long as they are not violent or calling for jobs or legal action.

I am sorry that you are having trouble coming to grips with the fact that your criticism of people criticizing Azlan has a chilling effect that is in effect censorship of them, as per your own definition.


First you tell me what I am saying and now you tell me what I am feeling. I have said nothing about criticism, so your little strawman is next to worthless. Your fake defense of free speech is a cloak for your defense of mob outrage—mere unprincipled virtue-signalling.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That's rather an extreme case, isn't it?

I'm not saying that in certain circumstances, as in the one you brought up, censorship and consequence can not closely resemble each other.

My calling those tweets "moronic" or "idiotic", or whatever are in no way calling for him to be forbidden to tweet ever again. But they are a consequence--rather a harmless one, I suppose, since I don't twitter, or tweet--of his words. Another consequence would be losing his job over this--he shouldn't--but he'd certainly still be allowed to tweet all day long his silly opinions just like everyone else in the twit-verse.


A consequence of insulting the prophet is murder. When we use use so-called consequences of speech as justification for actions against them, this is the result. Actually, the outrage at Aslan is the consequence of petty outrage, not his words.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth




You are dealing in extremes with that argument.
Are you saying there should be no consequences for any form of speech? Not sure if you mean that, but want to clarify...


Not that there should be, but that there is no consequence to any form of speech.


That is just not correct, even at a legal level. There are laws that preclude certain speech and of course there are also the consequences that come from societies reaction to speech, whether that be as simple as being shunned, to losing a job opportunity, getting fired, etc... The prevailing views of society as whole will always shape these consequences and to deny them is not being realistic. The only real fight is the one to shape society and embed a set of values and morals that we live by.

There is no freedom anywhere in the world that includes no consequences for what you say.
edit on 6/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth




That is just not correct, even at a legal level. There are laws that preclude certain speech and of course there are also the consequences that come from societies reaction to speech, whether that be as simple as being shunned, losing a job opportunity, getting fired... The prevailing views of society as whole will always shape these consequences and to deny them is not being realistic. The only real fight is the one to shape society and embed a set of values and morals that we live by.

There is no freedom anywhere in the world that includes no consequences for what you say.


It is correct. The only consequence of speaking is air being pushed out of the mouth, or maybe some sound waves. If was to insult your mother and you punched me in the nose, is that the result of my speech, or is that the result of your inability to control your motor cortex?



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: UKTruth


I think I just said the same thing. So you want to have me banned, arrested? What?


Nah, just removed from CNN's payroll, same as should happen to Aslan.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Grambler




And yet here you are, calling for the chilling of these people free speech because you are accusing them of being snowflakes.


I've never called anyone a snowflake, and you can dredge up my entire posting history to prove it. All you've done is accuse others of "calling" for this and that, when no one has called for anything except those you are defending.


And show on this thread were the people you are criticizing have called people snowflakes.

I am lumped into people you are criticizing as I have criticized Azlan, so can you show me where I have called anyone a snowflake?

But its ok for you to make these broad accusations.

I enjoy your defense of free speech, but you are not a true advocate of total free speech.

You feel that people don't have the right to criticize Azlan. You are censoring these poeple, and so iot makes your defense of free speech hollow. You just want free speech you agree with.

I feel that people have the right to criticize whatever they want, so long as they are not violent or calling for jobs or legal action.

I am sorry that you are having trouble coming to grips with the fact that your criticism of people criticizing Azlan has a chilling effect that is in effect censorship of them, as per your own definition.


First you tell me what I am saying and now you tell me what I am feeling. I have said nothing about criticism, so your little strawman is next to worthless. Your fake defense of free speech is a cloak for your defense of mob outrage—mere unprincipled virtue-signalling.


So you can't show me where I have called people snowflakes.

What do you mean you have said nothing of criticism? You said that people like me that are criticizing Azlan aren't actually criticizing, we are all engaging in mob outrage, and censorship.

You are defining words as you see fit, which is absurd. You arbitrarily define criticisms as censorship when you don't like it, and yet your define your criticism as good.

Lets look at this another way.

Azlanz comments were directed at Akin, who said some offensive things. There was a large group, a mob if you will, that spoke out against Akin which Azlan was a member of.

So my criticism of Azlan would in fact be him going over the top as part of mob outrage.

You then criticize me as being part of mob outrage.

So to you, criticizing someone as going overboard in a mob outrage is in fact mob outrage when others do it, but not when you do it.

Ask yourself who is making more sense.

The person that says all speech should be free as long as its not calling for violence or someone losing their job or not being allowed to speak again, or the person that has ever changing definitions of what censorship is and thinks that once enough people have an opinion it makes them part of a mob and that opinion then becomes censorship.

Your arbitrary standards are a clever way of making you the gate keeper of what free speech is good and which isn't.

The irony is by your own convoluted definition your are attempting to chill the speech of those you disagree with, thus censor them.

Between the two of us, you are the only one calling for the censorship of anyone, and yet you insist to be for free speech.
edit on 6-6-2017 by Grambler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth




That is just not correct, even at a legal level. There are laws that preclude certain speech and of course there are also the consequences that come from societies reaction to speech, whether that be as simple as being shunned, losing a job opportunity, getting fired... The prevailing views of society as whole will always shape these consequences and to deny them is not being realistic. The only real fight is the one to shape society and embed a set of values and morals that we live by.

There is no freedom anywhere in the world that includes no consequences for what you say.


It is correct. The only consequence of speaking is air being pushed out of the mouth, or maybe some sound waves. If was to insult your mother and you punched me in the nose, is that the result of my speech, or is that the result of your inability to control your motor cortex?


If I punched you, i would be breaking the law. In your example you have not broken the law, so you'd not be in any trouble.
If however, you were inciting violence and whipping up a crowd to go and kill someone, say the President, then you would be breaking the law and the consequences for you actions would be jail time.

I understand that there are no direct physical consequences to you pushing air out your mouth, but that does not change the fact that there are legal consequences to some speech. You don't have the complete freedom to say what you want without consequences in any country.

Similarly if you go out and preach, say, white supremacy, you will face social consequences. You will lose friends, you will potentially lose your job, you will be shunned and marginalised. That is the reality and it is one which does do a valuable job in regulating society to an extent that is positive overall.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 01:03 PM
link   



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

I never said you called people snowflakes.

Again, and for the last time, I never conflated mob outrage with criticism. That's your doing. And now you pretend I am criticizing criticism so you can continue to engage in your strawman.

As is obvious by what I wrote, since it is explicit, I said you are defending mob outrage, not a part of it.

Am I coercing anyone to shutup? No. Again, your strawman that I am criticizing criticism is false on its face.

And again, here we go with me "calling" for this and that. Utterly false.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

That's not the consequence of my actions or my speech, but the consequences of living in superstitious and censorial society.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Oh. You are just making stuff up because of paranoia. Gotcha. That explains the usage of the word "they".



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Grambler

I never said you called people snowflakes.

Again, and for the last time, I never conflated mob outrage with criticism. That's your doing. And now you pretend I am criticizing criticism so you can continue to engage in your strawman.

As is obvious by what I wrote, since it is explicit, I said you are defending mob outrage, not a part of it.

Am I coercing anyone to shutup? No. Again, your strawman that I am criticizing criticism is false on its face.

And again, here we go with me "calling" for this and that. Utterly false.


Look I will admit perhaps I misinterpreted what you said.

It seemed to me you were saying that my criticism of Azlans statement was part of mob outrage.

If not then I apologize.

I still don't understand why you feel mob outrage is chilling free speech. If someone says something so offensive that a huge amount of people are disgusted by it, why is that censorship?

This is no more censorship than your criticizing them.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth

That's not the consequence of my actions or my speech, but the consequences of living in superstitious and censorial society.


All society is censored, much of which is self censoring, but some is by law.
You may argue for that to be changed, but the task of doing so is impossible. You can change laws, for sure, but you can't change human nature very easily.
edit on 6/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Hey hey...don't hold all democrats responsible for what one moron says.
That's not fair.
Most of us are just ordinary citizens just people .
Don't put us all in a box.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

They're extremists.
You've been debating with me for months now. Do you think I would condone actions like those people?
Do you think I would do anything like that?
I'm an average democrat. Tax paying living my life citizen. I don't hate anyone.
Well the people who walk by and throw trash on my property I don't love a lot but....life in the city.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Sillyolme

Nope, not fair at all.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler




Look I will admit perhaps I misinterpreted what you said.

It seemed to me you were saying that my criticism of Azlans statement was part of mob outrage.

If not then I apologize.

I still don't understand why you feel mob outrage is chilling free speech. If someone says something so offensive that a huge amount of people are disgusted by it, why is that censorship?

This is no more censorship than your criticizing them.


Thank you. That's fair.

Moral outrage, especially of the mob variety, aims at censorship. It leads to things like book burning. It is a form of "shut up". Like when John Lennon said "We are bigger than Jesus", the subsequent moral outrage led to people burning their records.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UKTruth

They're extremists.
You've been debating with me for months now. Do you think I would condone actions like those people?
Do you think I would do anything like that?
I'm an average democrat. Tax paying living my life citizen. I don't hate anyone.
Well the people who walk by and throw trash on my property I don't love a lot but....life in the city.


I maintain that the majority of people are gathered somewhere in the middle ground - whether right or left of it. Then there are extremes on the right and the left. The extreme right has been widely and fairly criticised for some time, but the extreme left seem to be driving a fairly ugly narrative too and are only beginning to get called out for it.
edit on 6/6/2017 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
40
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join