The END of Hate Speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS

page: 12
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by deccal
 


well see, that's the problem. i can no more change the direction of people "(Because they are individuals) than you can change the direction of men who abuse women (or women who abuse men).

now THAT is common sense.


Sure..but what I mean, if you are male or christian, you have the obligation to recognise which bad thing males and christians made before you and should be careful not to repeat them. I dont say that you [speaking in general] have to be activist, but at least be honest to yourself and your environment.




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
While I agree with this action, I feel that you people will not enforce this concerning religion, well, maybe you will concerning religion, with the exception of Christianity as always, because this site is dedicated towards hatred of Christianity, I've NEVER seen a mod step in and tell people to quit hating on someone because they're a Christian.

So while I think this is a great idea, that's all it is, you mods are full of crap when it comes to "ending hate speech" cause it's only for anyone except Christians, no tolerance, yeah right, lets have a look at CiR, you will see that, that forum section is dedicated to hating Christians.

-Lahara



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:49 AM
link   
I always go back to the example of free speech I heard described way back in the day:

You're free to yell "FIRE" if you feel like it....but you shouldn't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater or similar place simply for the reaction.




posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by griffinrl
I always go back to the example of free speech I heard described way back in the day:

You're free to yell "FIRE" if you feel like it....but you shouldn't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater or similar place simply for the reaction.



Hilarious


May I change it with "terrorist"?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 



as an individual, you are responsible for just one person -- YOU. you are not responsible for people with the same name as you. you are not responsible for the actions of the military or the rulers of your country. if you are the ruler, then that's what you are responsible for -- your actions as the ruler. see how that works?

to expect people to make the kinds of significant changes groups randomly accuse each other of, would have us all looking like schizophrenics.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:00 AM
link   
LOL....that's not for me to decide!



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by deccal
 



as an individual, you are responsible for just one person -- YOU. you are not responsible for people with the same name as you. you are not responsible for the actions of the military or the rulers of your country. if you are the ruler, then that's what you are responsible for -- your actions as the ruler. see how that works?


But...it is YOU who choose a belief or a collectiv value or a social role, and than you have the responsibilty to think critically upon your choice and your future behaviours. You have to carry the past of your choice with you. Such values you want to appropriate for yourself, lets say a religion or a membership of a footbal club, are always collective values. You can not experience it ascetically. You see, for example you were debating with someone about your belief on ATS. You are not experiencing it completly alone. Therefore you carry the responsibility of your choice.
Actually, we are going slightly to off topic
We may continue elsewhere if you want.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by deccal]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 


if there is an ultimate judge of all this, do you think he will blame you for what your neighbor did? you may have even paid taxes to allow him to continue living where he does. now let's say your neighbor didn't really do the thing but his great uncle twice removed, did. is it your fault? you live in same country. you live in same city. you live on same street. you allow him to continue living comfortably in the same area by your payment of taxes and he has no idea why you are mad at him for what his uncle twice removed did.

same idea.

so seems to me that hate speech is blaming individuals for things that they sincerely have not done as individuals.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by deccal
 


so seems to me that hate speech is blaming individuals for things that they sincerely have not done as individuals.


I think hate speech is directed more to races, religions, cultures, in short not to individuals but to a group of people or values etc..
What you are talking about is, insulting, personally attacking, aspersion, denouncing etc..etc..



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 


correct you are blaming an individual for the actions of the group, which may or may not be the group's fault at all. it could be construed as a group action by leaders, it may be enforced as a group action by leaders, but ultimately, you are not responsible for what the group does. otherwise, it's too easy to pigeon hole each other, for what we may have no control over, whatsoever.

in essence, you can't force people to be anything other than what they are, even by inference or inheritance (hate speech). they are individuals and think like individuals. and if you don't think so, compare factions within any religious group. you can fine tune that baby all the way down to minute details of every day living -- one leaves the cap off the toothpaste and the other doesn't.

so back to the original premise. hate speech is blaming individuals for what a group does, either in fact or by inference or inheritance.

how can it be anything else? i wouldn't kill you but someone else might. you wouldn't kill me but someone else might. same idea.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
i say we build an arena and make the leaders fight each other. it's pretty obvious that's what they are doing anyway and just using the individuals that make up their societies as fall guys

[edit on 6-2-2009 by undo]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by deccal
 


so back to the original premise. hate speech is blaming individuals for what a group does, either in fact or by inference or inheritance.

how can it be anything else? i wouldn't kill you but someone else might. you wouldn't kill me but someone else might. same idea.


No, wrong.
Hate speech might be a fabrication against a group, and it may contain a hidden agenda, or a terrible prejudice, or racism etc...
hate speech: muslims are barbar.
hate speech may contain elements against individual but it is not a must.

[edit on 6-2-2009 by deccal]



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by deccal
 


yeah the group is composed of individuals though. when you shoot someone in the foot, the whole group doesn't go to the hospital.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Illusionsaregrander
reply to post by YoungStalin
 


Yeah well failing to cite your sources is against T&C too.

And why would calling something a cult be "hate speech?"

Maybe the dumb part, but calling something a cult doesnt seem like it should be.


The reason the use of the word cult could be hateful with regard to a major religion like Christianity is the implications that the word has.

-a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader.

You may find a sect within Christianity to meet this standard, but to generalize the entire religion(or any other mainstream world religion for that matter) is just not an accurate use of the word.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I believe in freedom of speech.. and sometimes saying things under that freedom is said to be hate against a person or a group.
In the Netherlands we have such a thing going on on this moment with member of parlement who is currently being sued for hate speeches ect because his stance on Islamisation of the western world.
So as for that I like to say that restricting saying things which might or are sometimes hatefull to a group of persons, like christians , jews , muslims is not really a good thing because an healty discussion between groups with a pro and anti statement is helpfull for creating a solution and finding a way in the middle. Further more people who are limited in there expresion in what ever sentiment will cause people to struggle internally and leads to shootings and violent acts of desperation.
If you are against something or for something and others are against and you cannot speek about it you will boil up feelings upon a boiling point and that will lead to frustration and that frustration will sometimes bring people to terms which makes it easy to get away with those frustration by doing something about it by yourself .
It is my opinion that as long you are not calling for violence acts of violence and or crime punishable by law , you may say as much as you want as long you are not doing the things like violence and crime.
There allways and always will be people offended by opinions , fact , fiction and any other thing, and it is better to have people rationaly and with calm explain there viewpoint as long you don't swear, call names, are use peoples handicaps , color of skin ect and use those against a person because you are against his view point.
As for religions , as long we have several theories on life , evolution , creatism , and several more , banning a discussion on those things will be rather unwise , for none of them are yet proven and through discusion and facts answers must and will be found and not saying things like what a religion or any other way of life is doing wrong or in the name of that religion or way of life will lead to tensions .
Discussion is healthy and not saying things on surten topics and viewpoints just because it might be hatefull or those groups of persons are feeling hated or hurt in ther feelings will lead to a censurship and a downwards spiral because then other people might be offended hurt in feelings because they are not allowed to there speech on there viewpoint on that topic.

that is my opinion and I will not call for violence but things which has to be said or the be spoken in a discusion eventhough its not nice to say because peoples feelings are getting hurt. truth sometimes is hurtfull and for saying something like that which might be hurtfull allways give facts or post info in which your claim is based so people can discus that in a topic aslong if it will not lead towards an offtopic discussion then find a topic where you can explain that claim and view or create one in a topic area based on your discussion. like religion in religion topic.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRandom1
While I agree with this action, I feel that you people will not enforce this concerning religion, well, maybe you will concerning religion, with the exception of Christianity as always, because this site is dedicated towards hatred of Christianity, I've NEVER seen a mod step in and tell people to quit hating on someone because they're a Christian.


Is this true?



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:23 PM
link   
hmmm ...

I sure hope this is not the beginning of enforced political correctness.

In my opinion the "hate speech" idea, is often used to avoid disclosing of uncomfortable truths, and is a child of political correctness.

To judge something as "hate speech", YOU assume to know what is right.

For instance :

Zionism could be an evil conspiracy of the worst kind.

Islam could be a satanic spirit influence.

EU could be a giant NWO plot to destroy democracy in europe.

White people could be a race of bad people out to destroy the coloured parts of humanity.

etc.etc.

If any of those statement are true, the guys crying "hate speech" are actually the bad guys.

Making your opponent silent with such a move ammounts to censorship.

In my oppinion political correctness is the direct opposite of democracy.

And the only bad guys are those that prevent others from stating their oppinion


I would be sad to see ATS killed by PC.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Hey, as long as the moderators can curb their rather heinous examples of bias in how they enforce these rules and the TOC, then there shouldn't be an issue. Myself, I remain highly skeptical due to my observations of them.



posted on Feb, 6 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pilot70
 


This isn't about political correctness, though. It is about blatant and obvious hate, insults, and inflammatory rhetoric.

Play nice and don't call anyone or any group ugly names. That's all there is to it.





new topics
top topics
 
55
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join