The politics of being banned

[Talisman]

I just came back & would like to add 2 last things before I leave for work.

1. I don't reckon it's fair to bag someone who reads books & say they don't have their own ideas - they may just be using references from books to support their own beliefs - don't forget that by this stage in human evolution, there are probably very few to no real new ideas - esp. when it comes to philosophy, you can almost gaurantee somone else has written down - or at least had - the very same idea that someone else thinks is their original idea. So that seems a little unfair.

2. If you are certain that someone will take offence to a statement, in my humble opinion, that statement no longer falls under the guise of freedom of speech, instead it is simply a mean/nasty (take you pick) comment. That does not amount to heathly debate, but rather humiliation &/or hurt feelings. So the question must then be: why make that comment when no positivity, only hurt, will come of it?

[Bluke]

Furthermore, J.S. Mill in On Liberty stated that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Purhaps prospected deemed your comments to be particularly harming to others on chat, invalidating your intrinsic right to free speech.

[incog43]

Furthermore, J.S. Mill in On Liberty stated that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Purhaps prospected deemed your comments to be particularly harming to others on chat, invalidating your intrinsic right to free speech.

Look, do you have any ideas of your own?

All you do is quote other peoples ideas?

[incog43]

I just came back & would like to add 2 last things before I leave for work.

1. I don't reckon it's fair to bag someone who reads books & say they don't have their own ideas - they may just be using references from books to support their own beliefs - don't forget that by this stage in human evolution, there are probably very few to no real new ideas - esp. when it comes to philosophy, you can almost gaurantee somone else has written down - or at least had - the very same idea that someone else thinks is their original idea. So that seems a little unfair.

2. If you are certain that someone will take offence to a statement, in my humble opinion, that statement no longer falls under the guise of freedom of speech, instead it is simply a mean/nasty (take you pick) comment. That does not amount to heathly debate, but rather humiliation &/or hurt feelings. So the question must then be: why make that comment when no positivity, only hurt, will come of it?

I think you are missing the point, what you think is nit important to me, I am only concerned with what I think, I will however be patient and listen to your musings.

[incog43]

Furthermore, J.S. Mill in On Liberty stated that "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Purhaps prospected deemed your comments to be particularly harming to others on chat, invalidating your intrinsic right to free speech.

"Those who sacrifice freedom for safety deserve neither" - Thomas Jefferson

[Talisman]

Alright, I've got a spare moment or 2... I'm not that concerned with what I think either in this case, but you are an interesting case to study...

Please enlighten me, what is the point? It seems that to you freedom of speech overrides all else... Is that correct?

[Bluke]

I reject your postulation that it is only the outcomes that are important.

If we are to truly understand the outcome, and how we arrived at it then we must understand the 'process' first. Furthermore, if the outcome is always the 'same' why does it matter at all?

I believe that you began the debate by citing political philosphers. If you have nothing to counter my argument you can simply conceed. You claim that I only sprout the ideas of others, yet you do the same.

"Give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

[incog43]

I reject your postulation that it is only the outcomes that are important.

If we are to truly understand the outcome, and how we arrived at it then we must understand the 'process' first.

I believe that you began the debate by citing political philosphers. If you have nothing to counter my argument you can simply conceed. You claim that I only sprout the ideas of others, yet you do the same.

"Give me liberty, or give me death!" - Patrick Henry

Understand the process? My god, we have thousands of years of history to understand the process, I KNOW what the process is, fascism, socialism, national socialism communism...pick your poison, the OUTCOME however is ALWAYS the same.

Do you think the jews or russian peasants were concerned with the process when they were rounded up and murdered by the SS and russian secret police? No, huckleberry, they were only concerned with the imminent outcome, their death.

Perhaps if the people had off stood up earlier this would have been all avoided, first shut the people up, make them scared, then do what you want, that's the process genius, simple as that.

What exactly do you need to understand?

Free speech is the fundamental principal of liberty and freedom, get your head in the real world!

[Talisman]

Then am I right in saying that to you freedom of speech overrides all else... Is that correct?

[incog43]

Alright, I've got a spare moment or 2... I'm not that concerned with what I think either in this case, but you are an interesting case to study...

Please enlighten me, what is the point? It seems that to you freedom of speech overrides all else... Is that correct?

sure, I dont agree with racists, I think its disgusting.

Should we shut them up, maybe tattoo some numbers on their wrist so that we may identify them, how about make them wear a badge so that we may identify them, limit the jobs they may apply for...you get my drift.

NO, we speak against it, but its not for me or you to decide what is right or wrong, what can be said and what cant, once you make exceptions to free speech you will only continue to make MORE exceptions, for example, you cannot speak against global warming, or a carbon tax...get it?

[Boomz]

This is even better than the "I'm gone" thread.

[incog43]

This is even better than the "I'm gone" thread.

you read this thread? LMAO

[Bazinga]

This is even better than the "I'm gone" thread.

I'm just trying to work out who it is?  He has been registered for 18 months but only made 57 posts (and most of those are in this thread   :P). Rules out FLOPITOUT1

[incog43]

This is even better than the "I'm gone" thread.

I'm just trying to work out who it is?  He has been registered for 18 months but only made 57 posts (and most of those are in this thread   :P). Rules out FLOPITOUT1

I am liberty....

LMAO

[Boomz]

The first post was enough. Won't last long.

@Baz lol ;D probably the prophet from the bar ages ago  ::)