I cannot participate in a forum where I am censored. The admins here are censoring my right to free speech out of a ridiculous sense of PC-soaked idiocy (based probably on requests for censorship raised by Reg the Fronkey Farmer and Gallup's Mirror)

The fact that the welfare state induces dysgenics based on IQ has been proven many times over. Human biological diversity is also true. If I am not even allowed argue my case, then what is the point of having a debate? I am not even allowed to reply to accusations of racism that have been levelled against me.

I have no doubt that Reg and Gallup will continue thinking of themselves as open-minded even after this incident - they have the ability to believe whatever it is they want to believe.

Views: 908

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me.

I disagree. It is a flawed argument. It has the same merits (imo) as “spare the rod and spoil the child” when used to justify violence against children, or “a gentle slap” as it is sometimes called.

Which is more offensive: Telling a Kurdish woman on the street to “take that fucking sack of your head” or writing the same words in an Internet post? How about telling a gay teenager that they are sinful and corrupt or writing the same in an Internet post?

In both scenarios the answer is the same. You don’t know which is a greater wrong because you don’t know if the woman on the street will think you are just an idiot and dismiss you as such or if it will force her to relive the religious persecution she suffered in another land. We cannot judge which is more offensive because we do not know the person at the receiving end. However both are likely to incite hate crimes, therefore they can be termed “hate speech”.

The gay person may be strong enough to just think the person shouting the insults at them is a pathetic and ignorant fool while another may read the words and take them to be the final straw.

Maybe sometimes the “pen is mightier than the sword” or the word more damaging than the stick. Do we sit back and allow people free reign to spew out whatever they want or are we not allowed to in case it upsets them? If they cannot use their Right to Freedom of Speech responsibly, should they not be called to account? We have a right not to have to listen to them.

I have a tattoo on my arm that in Spanish reads “The sleep of reason produces monsters”.

Ok time for breakfast....

@Reg:

Prelude: I am not picking on Reg, nor am I picking on TA. this is just a conversation about words, intent and the emotional response listeners have.

Reg, your post contains a lot concepts and thoughts, a full rebuttal would be very lengthy, so please forgive me for only responding to pieces of it.

Gregg said: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me.

Reg responded:  I disagree. It is a flawed argument. It has the same merits (imo) as “spare the rod and spoil the child” when used to justify violence against children, or “a gentle slap” as it is sometimes called.

The same merits???  I can't find a correlation on merits between these two quotes.  One quote condones causing physical pain, the other explains that words lack the power to harm.

Reg:  Which is more offensive?:...In both scenarios the answer is the same. You don’t know...We cannot judge which is more offensive...

In this section you ask a question and then answer it, so I will skip that. 

...both are likely to incite hate crimes, therefore they can be termed “hate speech.

Your conclusion: "...likely to incite..."  is a speculation not a fact.

I could spend more time on this but for brevity's sake I'm going to skip ahead.

"...If they cannot use their Right to Freedom of Speech responsibly, should they not be called to account?"

This one is highly complex...I'm gonna have to take a pass.

"...We have a right not to have to listen to them."

Yes we do, I exercise mine all the time by not reading posts, changing the channel, clicking on the next YouTube link, or walking away from some dipshit on his orange crate in the middle of the Washington Mall.  But in the interest of my own freedom and liberty I refuse to censor any of it.

A great book on the risks of censorship is Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451

"Ok time for breakfast...."

Enjoy.

A great book on the risks of censorship is Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451"

F451 is about the violent repression of individual thought and expression, and the mass burning of books by a totalitarian state, Gregg. That sounds an awful lot like a slippery slope fallacy.

Or it suggests Civi was muzzled, never given a chance to speak his mind and make his case, or that his writings were torched after the fact. It simply isn't true.

Everything Civi wrote is still posted. He had every chance to present and support his argument. He failed at least fifteen times (as encapsulated below) and left of his own free will when denied a sixteenth repetition.

I exercise my freedom... by walking away from some dipshit on his orange crate in the middle of the Washington Mall.

TA wants the mall full of people, not the dipshit who makes the people leave. The dipshits have public forums where they can say whatever they want for however long they want. That includes spreading misinformation.

In a private forum the owner has the freedom to set an editorial policy. Here you get an orange crate to present your case. But once it's exposed as dressed-up bigotry and fabrication you step down and shut up, not repeat it and insist.

--------------------

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare. Here's why.
Me or Reg: Untrue. Debunked (as fraudulent)

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare. Here's why.
Me or Reg: Untrue. Debunked (non sequiter fallacy)

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare. Here's why.
Me or Reg: Untrue. Debunked (burden of proof fallacy)

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare. Here's why.
Me or Reg: Untrue. (Debunked) unsourced claim

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare. Here's why.
Me or Reg: Untrue. Debunked (no causality)

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare. Here's why.
Me or Reg: Untrue. Debunked (anecdotal)

Crackpot: Must you always have the last word?
Me or Reg: Irrelevant. Protesting being debunked

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare. Here's why.
Me or Reg: Debunked (as fraudulent),

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare. Here's why.
Me or Reg: Debunked (no causality),

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare. Here's why.
Me or Reg: Debunked (straw man fallacy),

Crackpot: If you were the least bit open minded you would listen!
Me or Reg: Irrelevant. Protesting being debunked again,

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare. Here's why.
Me or Reg: Debunked (ambiguity fallacy),

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare. Here's why.
Me or Reg: Debunked (straw man fallacy),

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare. Here's why.
Me or Reg: Debunked, (straw man fallacy, burden of proof fallacy).

Crackpot: Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare!!!!
Reg: Enough! Stop saying that because it's not true.

Crackpot: Censorship! Black people are genetically inferior barbarians on welfare, you ridiculous closed-minded PC-soaked idiots! You won't even let me respond! I'm leaving!

@GM:

"F451 is about the violent repression of individual thought and expression, and the mass burning of books by a totalitarian state, Gregg. That sounds an awful lot like a slippery slope fallacy."

Hey Gallup there are a lot of academic reviews on that book that don't reach the same conclusion as you, so I will let you take that up with them, I'm gonna read the story again.  Ray Bradbury is gone now but he left us 500 stories and books to enjoy.

"Everything Civi wrote is still posted. He had every chance to present and support his argument. He failed at least fifteen times (as encapsulated below) and left of his own free will when denied a sixteenth repetition."

See no censorship needed Civ took his ball and went home. :)

......................................................................................

TA is a great site, very tolerant, has enjoyable threads and fun peeps.

TA has every right to control what appears on  these pages.

'nuff said.

Gallup: F451 is about the violent repression of individual thought and expression, and the mass burning of books by a totalitarian state...

Gregg: Hey Gallup there are a lot of academic reviews on that book that don't reach the same conclusion as you...

True, but a lot of "academic reviews" do reach a similar conclusion as me:

"[T]he role on censorship, state-based or otherwise, is still perhaps the most frequent theme explored in the work. A variety of other themes in the novel besides censorship have been suggested. Two major themes are resistance to conformity and control of individuals via technology and mass media. Bradbury explores how the government is able to use mass media to influence society and suppress individualism through book burning."
- (Source: Themes in F451 on wikipedia)

Everything Civi wrote is still posted. He had every chance to present and support his argument. He failed at least fifteen times (as encapsulated below) and left of his own free will when denied a sixteenth repetition.

By the way? I love this, and I love that all the responses are still up. I love that we didn't need to use censorship. All you have to do is print the truth.

Hi Gregg,

Firstly, I have no problems with anyone “picking on Reg” even if Civi sees my attitude towards his remarks as “a ridiculous sense of PC-soaked idiocy”. Bring it on :-) However I do understand where you are coming from.

I said both arguments are flawed:

Sticks hurt, so can words. It is flawed because many people insist that words do not cause harm when they very often do. When the words used are inflammatory and come from an unreasoned thought process they can. Words that can be termed “hate speech” if they can lead to someone picking up sticks and using it on the backs of the person or group that those words were aimed at.

Sparing the rod spoils the child is also flawed. Not using violence against children does not harm them. Beating them with rods (sticks) does. Many Christians think it a wise proverb but I care little for the paucity of their wisdom or their morality (that statement is not an appeal to the merits of the main argument).

“In this section you ask a question and then answer it, so I will skip that”.

Yes, I was not asking a question, I was making a point.

“Your conclusion: "...likely to incite..." is a speculation not a fact”.

Yes, I used to word “likely” because I was not stating a fact.

"...If they cannot use their Right to Freedom of Speech responsibly, should they not be called to account?"

This one is highly complex...I'm gonna have to take a pass.

It is not complex. It is common sense to me, not special knowledge, but maybe that is just me.

"...We have a right not to have to listen to them."

Yes we do, I exercise mine all the time by not reading posts, changing the channel, clicking on the next YouTube link, or walking away from some dipshit on his orange crate in the middle of the Washington Mall.  But in the interest of my own freedom and liberty I refuse to censor any of it.

That is fine for you Gregg. If Civi wants to engage in hate speech he can do so on a hate site. I will not tolerate racist bigotry dressed up as intelligent science, especially when it has been shown by the rest of academia to be bunk.

Whether both of us (and many others here) can deal with such comments is irrelevant. Yes, we can both walk away unscathed and I would even be happy to continue the debate with Civi if it was not so public, in the hope that he would reach higher ground.

The point Gregg is not everyone can ignore it. You can, as you say, exercise your right not to listen or not to read such material. Again I did not “censor” Civi for your sake or mine. I censored his blog because there are people with less “vinegar” than us (as Hitchens calls it) that would be affected by it. It is not possible to “unread” words once they are read or to “unhear” them if listened to. The words have already struck them as if with a rod or stick. It is not just a case of who might be offended by “mere” words but also by those that see them as a cue to carry out racist or other type of actions those words were describing.

BTW I do understand the difference between State censorship or blanket bans on free speech or books and ethical responsibilities. T/A is a club that has members and therefore sets its own rules and standards.

El Sueno de la razon produce monstrous...

@Reg:

"... I have no problems with anyone “picking on Reg"..."

You Bastard...(snicker)...you do realize that I read, analyze, research, consider and then carefully compose a response to all the posts I respond to.  This process takes time.

You and GM put so many different and sometimes divergent bits into your posts that I have to shorten my masturbation time just to respond, damn you both to hell. :D

While I do enjoy playing with my little dinky friend, my one really great joy is riding my Triumph Street Triple and right now the twisties be a calling maybe later. :)

You and GM put so many different and sometimes divergent bits into your posts that I have to shorten my masturbation time just to respond, damn you both to hell. :D

I'm trying to get the implications of that statement out of my thoughts. :S

Gregg, you have at least the consolation that, if there is a hell, you, Reg and I are probably damned to it already.

Sadly, from my reading of Revelations, yes, sorry, I did read the damn thing, most of the historical and non-historical human population is going to hell anyway. Heaven only has room for 144000 it seems, which then begs the questions,'Why 144000?' and 'Does God have some southern BBQ cultural heritage?'  

Such would imply that, most of the people we might have any respect for, or not,  will be sharing a rather well attended BBQ, sadly the beer will not be cold, and any questions will by then be mostly settled beyond the point.

This is of course playing to the assertion of 'Hell' as a 'place'. I leave it to you to determine if 'masturbation' is still possible, in the abstract.... 

 

 I leave it to you to determine if 'masturbation' is still possible, in the abstract.... 

Yes. You can still get a degree in philosophy.

@kris:

I laughed and I laughed and laughed. (I can see Socrates right now preparing a list of questions for you) :)

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Forum

Things you hate.

Started by Devlin Cuite in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 11 minutes ago. 89 Replies

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service