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.
There are consequences to speech. When we speak, breath comes out of the mouth. When we write, we scratch ink onto paper. Those are the consequences. Your consequences, on the other hand, are products of magical thought.
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
In your line of reasoning, those that would hold others accountable for the consequences of their speech, such as libel/slander, are equal to censors.
There are consequences to speech. When we speak, breath comes out of the mouth. When we write, we scratch ink onto paper. Those are the consequences. Your consequences, on the other hand, are products of magical thought.
But I give you credit for once again taking the chicken# way out.
At least you are consistent.
Also worth noting that you do not deny that you do not believe people are entitled to the product of their labor, if it comes from an act of free expression.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Interesting subject.
The post-modernist view that language is already regulated by grammar, etc, doesn't work for me. Making speech cogent, compelling, and eloquent does not change the intent of the expression but serves to clarify its meaning. Given the choice one could indeed babble gibberish all day long. No message would be conveyed and the effort would be pointless. Having said that. I struggle to find a place in this formula for Ebonix. It is, in many examples, gibberish, has brought about the death of the adverb, and often sounds as if it is being invented mid-sentence.
Does Ebonix legitimize the concept of free speech or trivialize it?
Sorry, but the so-called consequence of speech is exactly what I said it was. Anything that occurs afterwords is the consequence of something else.
You holding people accountable for the “consequence of their speech” is the consequence of your magical thinking and authoritarian stance on civil liberties, not the speech; and blaming the speech is a consequence of your superstition. That’s the chicken# way of thinking, by the way.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Interesting subject.
The post-modernist view that language is already regulated by grammar, etc, doesn't work for me. Making speech cogent, compelling, and eloquent does not change the intent of the expression but serves to clarify its meaning. Given the choice one could indeed babble gibberish all day long. No message would be conveyed and the effort would be pointless. Having said that. I struggle to find a place in this formula for Ebonix. It is, in many examples, gibberish, has brought about the death of the adverb, and often sounds as if it is being invented mid-sentence.
Does Ebonix legitimize the concept of free speech or trivialize it?
I think black American vernacular is an actual, legit dialect of English.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Interesting subject.
The post-modernist view that language is already regulated by grammar, etc, doesn't work for me. Making speech cogent, compelling, and eloquent does not change the intent of the expression but serves to clarify its meaning. Given the choice one could indeed babble gibberish all day long. No message would be conveyed and the effort would be pointless. Having said that. I struggle to find a place in this formula for Ebonix. It is, in many examples, gibberish, has brought about the death of the adverb, and often sounds as if it is being invented mid-sentence.
Does Ebonix legitimize the concept of free speech or trivialize it?
I think black American vernacular is an actual, legit dialect of English.
I thought American was a sub-dialect of English. Excluding regional slang (soda or pop, etc) what are the rules regarding the creation of new language? When does a dialect stop being a sub and start being its own language?
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Sorry, but the so-called consequence of speech is exactly what I said it was. Anything that occurs afterwords is the consequence of something else.
Sure, I'm willing to bet we argue about that all day. But what you cannot claim it to be is censorship.
You holding people accountable for the “consequence of their speech” is the consequence of your magical thinking and authoritarian stance on civil liberties, not the speech; and blaming the speech is a consequence of your superstition. That’s the chicken# way of thinking, by the way.
Or protecting things like personal property rights, in regards to the product of one's freedom of expression.
Funny how you like to opine about authoritarianism and civil liberties, yet you claim no one has any rights to their personal property if that property is the product of freedom of expression.
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Interesting subject.
The post-modernist view that language is already regulated by grammar, etc, doesn't work for me. Making speech cogent, compelling, and eloquent does not change the intent of the expression but serves to clarify its meaning. Given the choice one could indeed babble gibberish all day long. No message would be conveyed and the effort would be pointless. Having said that. I struggle to find a place in this formula for Ebonix. It is, in many examples, gibberish, has brought about the death of the adverb, and often sounds as if it is being invented mid-sentence.
Does Ebonix legitimize the concept of free speech or trivialize it?
I think black American vernacular is an actual, legit dialect of English.
I thought American was a sub-dialect of English. Excluding regional slang (soda or pop, etc) what are the rules regarding the creation of new language? When does a dialect stop being a sub and start being its own language?
Your attempt to make speech private property is a ploy to make you look all freedom-loving.
The ease with which you switch between speech and private property in your rhetoric when it serves you is breathtaking.
You have super powers that let you know another person's intent?
Process of deduction. When an avowed socialist starts saying speech is private property, something is amiss.
Yes, you can protect what you created as private property, because it is private property.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I said the product of free speech can be considered private property. Not sure you can rely on your powers of deduction when it appears you have issues with simple matters of context.
Also, it seems that you rely on ad hom fallacies as a form of argument. Me being a socialist has nothing to do with the veracity, or lack thereof, of your argument.
Even if they are just combinations of words, huh?
It appears you are becoming a "censor".
It can also be considered not private property.
If you know anything about socialism, you'll know how socialists view private property.
It has to do with the veracity of your argument, or your professed political beliefs, one or the other.
No, I mean the original documents, the actual created product, not the content therein. It's the difference between a Rembrandt and a knock-off.
Indeed. We have protections in place for people such as that, that would deem it perfectly reasonable to hijack the property of someone else for profit.
If you knew anything about socialists, you would know that there is a wide range of opinions on such things.
By your definition, those that protect the created product and hold others accountable for the encroachment on another's personal property rights is a censor.
We have open source licences and groups such as Creative Commons who advocate against those that find it reasonable to claim monopoly on combinations of words.
...except on private property. Given your vehemence on the subject, perhaps you were mistaken about socialism.
No, those who suppress the freedom of speech of others is a censor.