Exactly. I consider it petty. That is my opinion. Nearly everything I've said has merely been my opinion (and I've tried to indicate that).
My point is you can't pacify humanity on wishful thinking.
I don't want to pacify them. That would be rather boring. They can get into fights, but I just think those people should be arrested (depending on the circumstances).
Violence does not indicate losing control of ones emotions.
I think it does when someone says something to you, it angers you, and you physically assault them.
Emotions are part of us to help guide our actions.
And, in many cases, letting yourself lose control of them will likely guide you down the path of being illogical. Any of them. Though, I think the most destructive one is possibly anger.
and assert that there is never a reason for violence.
If morality is subjective then there can be no agreement on right or wrong and the subjectivist should refrain from commenting on morality at all since by his own admission his statements are nothing but baseless opinion.
I still don't know what you mean. There's nothing stopping a moral relativist from commenting on anything.
Moral relativists can have moral codes of their own. Moral relativists can try to convince others to follow their moral code. Moral relativists can act against those who do not follow their moral code. None of those things are inconsistent with moral relativism as long as they admit that their personal morals aren't absolute fact.
That belief contains at least two objective moral statements
No, it doesn't. "I believe" is different from "I know." I don't like sports, but that doesn't mean I consider them factually bad. I believe in opinions. Do you?
What? I don't understand what you mean. I don't agree with the fact that this man was imprisoned so I voiced my disagreement, Those are my "grounds." I don't believe I said that it was factually evil to imprison him.
The people you know of, anyway. In any case, I was referring to people who would have this easily happen to them.
They have the power to heal and to harm.
Another human thing. Only if they let them.
Words have raised up empires and toppled them.
The words didn't do anything. People heard the words, and with their own free will, they acted. Of course, I don't expect such illogical creatures to really change.
It is irrational to expect it to happen
It is? I guess it is irrational to have any sort of high expectations for humans when it comes to controlling their own emotions. I still believe they should, however. And I will say that I still do not support physical violence against anyone (no matter what the other person said).
and it begs the question why the attacker shouldn't control his actions
Where did I say that he shouldn't? I just don't think it should be enforced by the law.
Why should the world accommodate the reprehensible and reckless behavior of an evil man and instead put the burden of enduring his evil on good people who have done nothing to deserve his assaults?
"Evil" is likely subjective (as well as "good"). Why, you ask? Because it's my opinion. That is the way I think it should be. It's obvious that you disagree, but I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you.
Fighting is not "necessary" as long as everyone functions exactly like you
Please tell me why people must fight over "petty" disagreements, then.
The power imbalance is exactly how i explained it. If everything were perfect then you are right and no one would need to fight one another.
Why are they fighting? You've yet to explain that.
Firmer control over emotions is great but it's just not realistic.
It's perfectly realistic to me.
This article is perfect indication that some people are just assholes.
This guy was particularly successful because people are so quick to anger.
Why should people be expected to bow down to a shithead in the name of "desensitization"?
Because I think losing control of your emotions is a sign of weakness. And they're not bowing down to them. Technically, if they weren't so easily offended, this guy probably wouldn't even bother. I don't really care whose fault it is in the end, though. All I care about is people being overly sensitive.
If this guy wasn't an asshole there wouldn't be a problem but he was an asshole.
By your definition maybe. I think he was just having fun with words.
Eventually the "bigger man" gets fed up and decides the jackass needs to be taught a lesson.
I wouldn't describe them as the "bigger man," then. I would describe them as a primitive human that is quick to anger.
There are forms of torture that don't even touch the victim.
And unless they are holding them somewhere, I don't see the problem. I believe it is ultimately their own fault that they didn't train themselves to be less easily offended.
and it would still be more damaging to your victim than if you had been punching them in the face each time.
Typically, that results in both physical and mental damage.
I can't believe that you completely fail to see the difference between
I didn't fail to see the difference. Intent has been brought up to me multiple times. I just don't care about intent when the subject is about mere words.
I don't care for trying to guess peoples' intentions when it comes to words. That said, I think that they should train themselves to be less easily offended.
I think we can still, without contradiction, object to this particular behavior without rejecting Free Speech principles.
I disagree. I think it's plainly obvious that the content is what mattered to them. Would this man have suffered the same fate if he had offered "kind" words? I don't think so. They just didn't like his words.
I find it interesting how some people, like you seem to dread physical violence and yet take so much delight in emotionally torturing your victims as if emotional pain and violence aren't intrinsically linked together.
Like me? Where did I indicate that I am such a person?
Would you tell the victim of a beating that he should grow thicker skin?
If there was a magical way to ward of physical pain and damage, yes.
Wow, this is the most straight up "blame the victim" post I've ever read.
Already answered that in a different post. Show me how you can just strengthen your mind to ward away all physical pain and damage and magically recover everything that was lost.
In this case, yes, I do blame the victims (which I don't believe is always a "bad" thing). They needn't be so easily offended.
I answers something similar here. Also, "real" property is more important to me than some website.
- If I throw shit all over your car, it's just a wash away from being clean. No need to be overly sensitive. - If your neighbors don't speak to you anymore because "you are a pedophile. hahaha that was a good one", no need to be overly sensitive. - Bullying should be allowed in school, kids should not be overly sensitive.
No, it can't. Whether you want it or not, the damage will still have been done. There is no way to "block" physical attacks as if they didn't happen. The person is right next to you, and unless they're extremely weak, damage has likely been done.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't stop them from torrenting, though.
"Petty" by your definition maybe.
Exactly. I consider it petty. That is my opinion. Nearly everything I've said has merely been my opinion (and I've tried to indicate that).
My point is you can't pacify humanity on wishful thinking.
I don't want to pacify them. That would be rather boring. They can get into fights, but I just think those people should be arrested (depending on the circumstances).
Violence does not indicate losing control of ones emotions.
I think it does when someone says something to you, it angers you, and you physically assault them.
Emotions are part of us to help guide our actions.
And, in many cases, letting yourself lose control of them will likely guide you down the path of being illogical. Any of them. Though, I think the most destructive one is possibly anger.
and assert that there is never a reason for violence.
I didn't assert that at all.
If morality is subjective then there can be no agreement on right or wrong and the subjectivist should refrain from commenting on morality at all since by his own admission his statements are nothing but baseless opinion.
I still don't know what you mean. There's nothing stopping a moral relativist from commenting on anything.
Moral relativists can have moral codes of their own. Moral relativists can try to convince others to follow their moral code. Moral relativists can act against those who do not follow their moral code. None of those things are inconsistent with moral relativism as long as they admit that their personal morals aren't absolute fact.
That belief contains at least two objective moral statements
No, it doesn't. "I believe" is different from "I know." I don't like sports, but that doesn't mean I consider them factually bad. I believe in opinions. Do you?
What? I don't understand what you mean. I don't agree with the fact that this man was imprisoned so I voiced my disagreement, Those are my "grounds." I don't believe I said that it was factually evil to imprison him.
Unless he owns a part of facebook, youtube or the rights to Thomas or the Girl's picture he vandalized somebody else's property.
I've already basically answered that here (and in some subsequent posts).
I don't see how he could have vandalized a picture (I think you're referring to something else in that case).
Apparently you think everybody should just sit there and take it. He's not actually vandalizing anybody's property.
Yes.
Many people don't think evil is subjective at all.
And? Some people do. I said "likely."
It appears unlikely, I can find no grounds other than an absolutist's overly romantic view of freedom to justify not intervening.
I don't think it's "overly romantic," but it doesn't really matter.
Then we are all "insane" or "unstable".
The people you know of, anyway. In any case, I was referring to people who would have this easily happen to them.
They have the power to heal and to harm.
Another human thing. Only if they let them.
Words have raised up empires and toppled them.
The words didn't do anything. People heard the words, and with their own free will, they acted. Of course, I don't expect such illogical creatures to really change.
It is irrational to expect it to happen
It is? I guess it is irrational to have any sort of high expectations for humans when it comes to controlling their own emotions. I still believe they should, however. And I will say that I still do not support physical violence against anyone (no matter what the other person said).
and it begs the question why the attacker shouldn't control his actions
Where did I say that he shouldn't? I just don't think it should be enforced by the law.
Why should the world accommodate the reprehensible and reckless behavior of an evil man and instead put the burden of enduring his evil on good people who have done nothing to deserve his assaults?
"Evil" is likely subjective (as well as "good"). Why, you ask? Because it's my opinion. That is the way I think it should be. It's obvious that you disagree, but I don't think I'm going to be able to convince you.
Fighting is not "necessary" as long as everyone functions exactly like you
Please tell me why people must fight over "petty" disagreements, then.
The power imbalance is exactly how i explained it. If everything were perfect then you are right and no one would need to fight one another.
Why are they fighting? You've yet to explain that.
Firmer control over emotions is great but it's just not realistic.
It's perfectly realistic to me.
This article is perfect indication that some people are just assholes.
This guy was particularly successful because people are so quick to anger.
Why should people be expected to bow down to a shithead in the name of "desensitization"?
Because I think losing control of your emotions is a sign of weakness. And they're not bowing down to them. Technically, if they weren't so easily offended, this guy probably wouldn't even bother. I don't really care whose fault it is in the end, though. All I care about is people being overly sensitive.
If this guy wasn't an asshole there wouldn't be a problem but he was an asshole.
By your definition maybe. I think he was just having fun with words.
Eventually the "bigger man" gets fed up and decides the jackass needs to be taught a lesson.
I wouldn't describe them as the "bigger man," then. I would describe them as a primitive human that is quick to anger.
It's people like the one in the article.
I disagree that it's "okay," then.
They do this because they know there is no repercussions to their actions.
In this case, there was. If laws were written the way I want them to be, there wouldn't be. And I think everything would be working as intended.
If all physical acts of violence are illegal then so must be all attacks on emotions otherwise you will create a power imbalance.
Power imbalance? Of what? It is not necessary, as far as I know, for people to fight one another.
In any case, I suggest having firmer control over your emotions or desensitization.
Harassing people is usually not covered by free speech law.
I disagree with those laws, then.
But not specific persons.
Yeah. Can't criticize those people. They're too easily offended.
There are forms of torture that don't even touch the victim.
And unless they are holding them somewhere, I don't see the problem. I believe it is ultimately their own fault that they didn't train themselves to be less easily offended.
and it would still be more damaging to your victim than if you had been punching them in the face each time.
Typically, that results in both physical and mental damage.
I can't believe that you completely fail to see the difference between
I didn't fail to see the difference. Intent has been brought up to me multiple times. I just don't care about intent when the subject is about mere words.
I don't care for trying to guess peoples' intentions when it comes to words. That said, I think that they should train themselves to be less easily offended.
I didn't say they couldn't have emotions. I believe that they should just stop being so easily offended.
And this is a *preferable* state of affairs in your opinion?
Compared to people getting angry and losing control of themselves? Yes. I believe that is a failing of human beings.
People commit suicide over the kind of behavior that guy exhibited
I disagree that that's enough of a reason to ban such behavior. What if people tended to commit suicide when they learned that someone was an atheist?
My answer is for them to just realize that words are just words. They can't actually hurt them unless they let them hurt them.
you seem to consider people who are grieving to be "insane" and "unstable".
Actually, I consider those who would attack or kill another person because they've lost control of their emotions to be "insane" or "unstable."
You under react to antisocial behavior but over react to physical violence.
But I don't react to physical violence, either. I just think it should be illegal.
Telling grieving families to "not be so sensitive" doesn't magically work either.
Are you saying that it is not possible for someone to desensitize themselves and/or realize that words are just words?
They disagreed (or were offended) with what he said. Then he was punished.
Ever heard of it?
Yeah. But it makes no difference. The fact that a lot of people believe something doesn't make it true.
truly offensive
Subjective.
There is a universal agreement that the dead child's parents
It's only a universal agreement if absolutely every human in existence agrees.
Already responded to that here.
I think we can still, without contradiction, object to this particular behavior without rejecting Free Speech principles.
I disagree. I think it's plainly obvious that the content is what mattered to them. Would this man have suffered the same fate if he had offered "kind" words? I don't think so. They just didn't like his words.
I find it interesting how some people, like you seem to dread physical violence and yet take so much delight in emotionally torturing your victims as if emotional pain and violence aren't intrinsically linked together.
Like me? Where did I indicate that I am such a person?
Would you tell the victim of a beating that he should grow thicker skin?
If there was a magical way to ward of physical pain and damage, yes.
Wow, this is the most straight up "blame the victim" post I've ever read.
Already answered that in a different post. Show me how you can just strengthen your mind to ward away all physical pain and damage and magically recover everything that was lost.
In this case, yes, I do blame the victims (which I don't believe is always a "bad" thing). They needn't be so easily offended.
I thought you said you were thick-skinned? Or just thick?
Well, you said something so mean to me! I couldn't help but call the cops and be terribly offended.
I answers something similar here. Also, "real" property is more important to me than some website.
- If I throw shit all over your car, it's just a wash away from being clean. No need to be overly sensitive.
- If your neighbors don't speak to you anymore because "you are a pedophile. hahaha that was a good one", no need to be overly sensitive.
- Bullying should be allowed in school, kids should not be overly sensitive.
I agree with all three.
Intent matters
To you it matters. But not to me.
If I take a physical swing at someones chin and manage to miss it is still assault. If I attempt to shoot someone and miss it is assault.
Intent doesn't matter to me if the subject is mere words. It's also more difficult to guess accurately in that case.
No, it can't. Whether you want it or not, the damage will still have been done. There is no way to "block" physical attacks as if they didn't happen. The person is right next to you, and unless they're extremely weak, damage has likely been done.
And "bad" is subjective.