It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight
I wrote about my views on free speech in the following OPs, but have yet to get around to finish them. To tell you the truth, I think it’s a losing battle.
Free speech? Absolutely.
In Defence of Hate Speech
Even though there is zero evidence that a word can have any effect beyond the effect of its medium—the effects of the breath on the surroundings or the effects of ink on paper for example—humans must be brainwashed to believe the opposite.
Orlly? Then tell me- it shouldn't be too hard- why did you bother writing this at all?
My words come from my mind and I put them together so that I may know my thoughts and that I may test them for validity. I speak them so I may show you, and impart my thoughts to you, that you may glean from them, and that I in turn may glean from your reaction.
originally posted by: LucidWarrior
a reply to: LucidWarrior
Words become violence, inasmuch as anything else does: by the way they are turned against someone. A weapon is turned against someone, and their body gets hurt. Yippee Kai Yay. Words are turned against someone, and we see nations go to war, we see genocides, and religious wars, we see propaganda. We see kids commiting suicide from verbal abuse.
To ignore the mind in this sense as a valid existence which can be disrupted, is to defile ones very existence as a anything motchre than a stupid ape. A violent act would be any act that is designed to harm another, or to illicit or coerce the other, or to take something the other wouldn't give by means of force or deceit.
If words are not violence, then why don't you yell fire in a movie theater, or bomb in an airport? Let me describe be in explicit detail l how I'm going to murder your family while you watch, then tell me that is not a harmful act. Even if the words themselves do not bother you, the fact is they do carry the explicit intent of harm, in fact is used as a vehicle to convey that harm ahead of time...
If words are not violence, then tell me what was MK Ultra? (When they subjected people to torture in order to weaken their psyche and then use words to brainwash them...
And lastly, if words are not violence, then surely I can tell everyone a cheap way to make a nuclear bomb with resources from home depot? Were it not for words, then no terrorist group could operate effectively, and nuclear weapons would not exist...
Apologies for speaking in rhetoric.
When words get rehashed to make a thread about the same worn out LesMis topic.
So that I may write it and you could read it. Not hard at all.
You impart nothing of the sort. You've arranged your thoughts into a coherent combination in the hopes that I would read them, yes, but it is up to me to read them, understand them, determine their significance, compare them to my own standards of reason, logic, and agree with them or not. Once read, your words are in my domain and under my control. I might have ignored it all.
Of course, in each of your examples, the violence is always in the reaction, not in the words or those who speak them.
Well, yes, BUT if words can have no effect except on air by breath and on paper by ink, and not at all in my mind, then why speak your thoughts for me to see, if they will do nothing, if they are meaningless.
The words are specifically designed to achieve those results. Just as my motion to swing a baseball bay is designed to bash in your head.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
That's your doing, not mine.
It's because you have no life to give it.
Correct, all I can do is point out that you have made numerous threads based on the same topic. There is nothing new to say that I have not said in any of those other threads. It would just be playing along in the beating of the poor dead horse.