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.

 

University of Tampa fires teacher whose tweet blamed Harvey on Texas GOP vote

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408




I suggested a slap...

You brought up murder.


If you can justify slapping someone because you're offended, it is within the bounds of reason that someone could justify murder for the exact same reasons.


That's a huge leap in logic.

It's like saying if I can justify spanking a child for their wrong actions, it is within the bounds of reason that someone could justify murder for the exact same reasons.




posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




So it appears you are trying to make the argument that there are no consequences for our words or actions, only consequences for or by those that react to our words or actions.

If so, not based in reality.


Words specifically. Yes, my argument is that you, and not my words, control your actions. Unless you believe in sorcery, that's just how it is.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Citizens United: Money is a form of free speech.
University of Tampa used their freedom of speech to decide they would no longer be giving money to this professor.

You either defend the principle from all attacks, or you don't. You either believe in the principle, or you don't.

See how this works?


Money is not speech. Money is a medium of exchange.


The SCOTUS disagrees with you, and until they change that position, money as a form of speech is the law of the land.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




So it appears you are trying to make the argument that there are no consequences for our words or actions, only consequences for or by those that react to our words or actions.

If so, not based in reality.


Words specifically. Yes, my argument is that you, and not my words, control your actions. Unless you believe in sorcery, that's just how it is.


Again, you are correct in a philosophical sense, but not in a real world application.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408

Anyone that wants censorship verses the principle of free speech has no honour.

Talking about ladies and mom jokes is detractors that the truth is important and ability to express yourself is important.

Your analogy isn't adequate as far as you can throw it, obviously I agree he shouldn't have called your lady fat, but would you rather live in a world being prosecuted for that?

The PC culture "Right" is absolutely ruining America with idea you can't have both within reason in society.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




That's a huge leap in logic.

It's like saying if I can justify spanking a child for their wrong actions, it is within the bounds of reason that someone could justify murder for the exact same reasons.


Not really. I thought it was fairly obvious that people who get offended at another's words can and will use a wide variety of violence on them, but I can give you examples if you like.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Citizens United: Money is a form of free speech.
University of Tampa used their freedom of speech to decide they would no longer be giving money to this professor.

You either defend the principle from all attacks, or you don't. You either believe in the principle, or you don't.

See how this works?


Money is not speech. Money is a medium of exchange.


The SCOTUS disagrees with you, and until they change that position, money as a form of speech is the law of the land.


I agree with LesMis on that aspect, but you are correct as well.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I agree with Hazardous here. If someone disrespected my wife, they're not going to have a fight, they're going to get a ride to the hospital.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:22 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Again, you are correct in a philosophical sense, but not in a real world application.


That's the facts of reality. Is it you or words that manipulate your body to act?



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




I agree with Hazardous here. If someone disrespected my wife, they're not going to have a fight, they're going to get a ride to the hospital.


That's the case with most people. Censorship is a default setting. So you find yourself in good company.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




The SCOTUS disagrees with you, and until they change that position, money as a form of speech is the law of the land.


Principles do not begin and end at the boundary of your country.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:24 PM
link   
The person in question simply said something distasteful and was punished for it.

This is not an academic exercise, this is what happened.

Basically, you cannot say anything that might be construed as unpopular for fear of being punished.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope



Not really. I thought it was fairly obvious that people who get offended at another's words can and will use a wide variety of violence on them, but I can give you examples if you like.


I'm sure you can, but that does not mean they were justified in their actions/reactions. It's a leap in logic, just as it is to think it's reasonable to murder someone for being offended, whether they think it was justified or not.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




I'm sure you can, but that does not mean they were justified in their actions/reactions. It's a leap in logic, just as it is to think it's reasonable to murder someone for being offended, whether they think it was justified or not.


I applies the same logic, just taken to its extreme.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: burdman30ott6




I agree with Hazardous here. If someone disrespected my wife, they're not going to have a fight, they're going to get a ride to the hospital.


That's the case with most people. Censorship is a default setting. So you find yourself in good company.


Respect isn't censorship, it's essential civility and tact. It is the same reason most countries have laws lifting expectations of protection for those using fighting words or shouting fire in a theater. If someone disrespects me, I will take measures to ensure they remember the consequences from that disrespect for a long time.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6




Respect isn't censorship, it's essential civility and tact. It is the same reason most countries have laws lifting expectations of protection for those using fighting words or shouting fire in a theater. If someone disrespects me, I will take measures to ensure they remember the consequences from that disrespect for a long time.


No, violence can be used as censorship. There is nothing civil about hospitalizing someone because they spoke ill of another. In fact, I would argue that is a property of barbarism.



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




Again, you are correct in a philosophical sense, but not in a real world application.


That's the facts of reality. Is it you or words that manipulate your body to act?


Depends on the situation and words used.

If someone came to me with a firearm in hand and said "I can't wait to try this at the range", I would not feel compelled to act.

If someone came to me with a firearm in hand and said "I'm going to kill you", those words would compel me to act, unless I am a chicken#.

Again, you are conflating the philosophical with reality.

While you are correct in one aspect, you are incorrect in the other.
edit on 30-8-2017 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:35 PM
link   
We've established that saying something negative results in punishment.

How long until it's required to say something positive for fear of punishment?



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




Depends on the situation and words used.

If someone came to me with a firearm in hand and said "I can't wait to try this at the range", I would not feel compelled to act.

If someone came to me with a firearm in hand and said "I'm going to kill you", those words would compel me to act, unless I am a chicken#.

Again, you are conflating the philosophical with reality.

While you are correct in one aspect, you are


Threatening someone with immanent death while pointing a firearm at them isn't mere expression, but a real world danger. The words aren't the only objects in play in this scenario.

Again, is it true or false that words manipulate or push your body in any fashion?



posted on Aug, 30 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert




I'm sure you can, but that does not mean they were justified in their actions/reactions. It's a leap in logic, just as it is to think it's reasonable to murder someone for being offended, whether they think it was justified or not.


I applies the same logic, just taken to its extreme.


It's that extreme leap that takes you from being correct in the philosophical sense, to being incorrect in real world application.




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join