I disagree. I have the ability to magically know someone's true intentions. His intent was to harm me.
And even Americans need to understand that the right to free speech has limits.
It only has limits if society sets those limits.
Considering anything publishable as "free speech" would mean that bomb manuals, pornography to minors, and even minors in pornography would be protected.
I completely agree with all of those things being protected speech. Also, forcing a minor to be in a pornographic film isn't speech. Spreading the film around is, though.
When you get down to it, removing paint from stone isn't very hard to do either.
The only thing you can do on a website is whatever it explicitly allows. Unless you hack the website, you must follow its arbitrary rules. I'm simply not in favor of going after people for their speech. Especially on a website. If the website was public, then too bad for you. The same would apply, for instance, if you were letting everyone draw on a gravestone. I don't think you should then be able to decide that someone vandalized it because they drew something you didn't like (even if they didn't follow your arbitrary rules).
but rather that you only care about property in the real world. That's okay, but you should be honest about it.
I only "care" if the website has been hacked or something similar.
It may be harder to clean a gravestone, but that doesn't mean there isn't effort involved in deleting someone's offensive messages and banning them posting further.
I don't care about that effort. Sorry.
What qualifies as defacing a gravestone? Writing a comment that the gravestone owner doesn't like?
Did they tell everyone that they could leave comments on the gravestone?
In person that could get you killed, rightly or wrongly.
I'm glad that we have the internet, then. That way you don't have to deal with people that I deem as "insane" and "unstable."
And I've already said that I don't care about those. I've already acknowledged that the laws aren't what I think they should be. I'm only speaking of my opinion.
They might not have, but I believe it is possible to train yourself to control your emotions (as well as desensitize yourself). When you realize that they are mere words that can do you no actual harm unless you let them, I think the effect it has on you will be greatly lessened.
I understand that you enjoy playing devil's advocate
How am I playing the devil's advocate? I don't believe I am. You say it is a clear-cut case, but I disagree.
Using free speech in this manner is completely abusive and non-productive.
I disagree.
It's no different than if he physically assaulted a member of the victim's family.
I've outlined why I disagree with this multiple times. Not only was no physical damage done, but they need not be offended by anything this guy does. That is completely up to them.
I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny, or if you're just an idiot, but in common law countries there's a concept known as "reasonableness".
And there's also such a thing as "subjectivity." In other words, what is "reasonable" is subjective. You'll get varying answers. Not a good way to write laws, in my opinion.
Way to go. You seem to have trouble grasping complete sentences.
This is highly offensive to me. Do you want to be sent to jail?
So, in your world view, if you shout "Go Lakers!" in the middle of a field of Chicago Bulls supporters, the 500 people that want to bash your head are idiots, and you are completely sane?
Yes. Why would they attack you for such a "petty" thing? To me, they are mere imbeciles.
What's being taken into account is the likelihood of causing harm and suffering.
I've already basically answered this, though. I believe people should not be so easily offended and should train themselves to control their emotions.
It doesn't matter to me what the current law or procedures are; I disagree with them.
Must say that you've successfully diverted the question of whether the chap maliciously caused harm and suffering
I did? I remember answering that multiple times. I stated that I didn't care what his intention was.
Very nice straw man.
Where is the straw man? I merely replied to what people were saying. I began talking about vandalism because of this comment: "Or would you like someone to deface the grave of your mother with the statement "hey, if you don't like it, just don't visit"?"
I felt that wasn't a very good analogy, so I replied to it.
No, it still won't. All that will accomplish is the changing of laws and such. A bunch of people believing the world is flat won't make it so (or, at least, that's what I've observed).
Yes, you can see into 'alternate', or rather 'potential' realities.
I was just referring to the fact that I can't predict what will happen with 100% accuracy (despite what you said, I don't believe that very many things can be proven with 100% accuracy). However, if I were to take a guess, then I'd say that I wouldn't be offended.
As is harrassment.
But I'm only speaking of my opinion. I know that the laws are different than what I think they should be.
You are circling towards the extreme libertarian viewpoint that even if I explicitly request another person to commit a crime, I have done nothing wrong myself.
Circling towards? That's exactly what I think.
Meanwhile, in the real world
Meanwhile, on this website, I'm talking about my opinions. They seem to be rather unpopular, too.
why is defacing a dedicated memorial site not "vandalizing someone's property"?
Because you didn't actually destroy anything in any hard to remove manner. In any case, even if you did consider it vandalizing someone's property, I'll just have to disagree. I care more about property in the real world.
Not only that, but what qualifies as defacing a website? Posting a comment that the website owner doesn't like? I don't agree with that at all.
I'm pretty sure they started immediately with that suppressive agenda.
Yeah. They all just appeared out of nowhere. The people definitely wanted them.
But even if it didn't happen in the past, that does not mean it wouldn't happen at all. The "First they came" speech comes to mind. I'd say allowing them to slowly erode rights (such as free speech) would be a good way to do that. Start out by doing it to the unpopular people and then move your way up.
If you continue your behaviour, it's deliberate action.
I don't care if it's a deliberate action. That is irrelevant to me. Not only is it difficult to prove intent in what I believe is many circumstances, but an individual can likely train themselves (or perhaps they were already like that from the beginning) to not be so easily offended. There are no laws stating that they must be offended.
Now, you're telling that I shouldn't be so sensitive.
People can change. They do it all the time, I think. It may take some self-teaching, but I think it is possible. And in a society that advocates people to be less easily offended, I think the behavior would become more common.
But, even if they can't change, I still don't care about "harm" inflicted upon someone through the use of words.
Proclaiming hatred in front of people can and does start fights which can result in people being killed or seriously injured.
What? So if an opinion could make other people angry, that opinion should be banned? If telling people that you were an atheist would make them angry and start fights, people shouldn't be able to say that they're an atheist?
I'm going to disagree. I say that is the fault of the "idiots" who start the fights, and they are the ones who need to be dealt with.
At what point does a website owner's little rules for their own website apply to the real world? I'd rather not have a website owner say, "I don't like your comment. Therefore, you defaced my website!"
"Worse" is subjective, and I was referring to the fact that it wasn't the same. But, in any case, I don't think saying something is worse than vandalizing someone's property.
right wing
That's probably the first time someone called me right-wing.
Slashdot Mirror
There was no intent to cause harm with his post
I disagree. I have the ability to magically know someone's true intentions. His intent was to harm me.
And even Americans need to understand that the right to free speech has limits.
It only has limits if society sets those limits.
Considering anything publishable as "free speech" would mean that bomb manuals, pornography to minors, and even minors in pornography would be protected.
I completely agree with all of those things being protected speech. Also, forcing a minor to be in a pornographic film isn't speech. Spreading the film around is, though.
When you get down to it, removing paint from stone isn't very hard to do either.
The only thing you can do on a website is whatever it explicitly allows. Unless you hack the website, you must follow its arbitrary rules. I'm simply not in favor of going after people for their speech. Especially on a website. If the website was public, then too bad for you. The same would apply, for instance, if you were letting everyone draw on a gravestone. I don't think you should then be able to decide that someone vandalized it because they drew something you didn't like (even if they didn't follow your arbitrary rules).
but rather that you only care about property in the real world. That's okay, but you should be honest about it.
I only "care" if the website has been hacked or something similar.
It may be harder to clean a gravestone, but that doesn't mean there isn't effort involved in deleting someone's offensive messages and banning them posting further.
I don't care about that effort. Sorry.
What qualifies as defacing a gravestone? Writing a comment that the gravestone owner doesn't like?
Did they tell everyone that they could leave comments on the gravestone?
In person that could get you killed, rightly or wrongly.
I'm glad that we have the internet, then. That way you don't have to deal with people that I deem as "insane" and "unstable."
And I've already said that I don't care about those. I've already acknowledged that the laws aren't what I think they should be. I'm only speaking of my opinion.
They might not have, but I believe it is possible to train yourself to control your emotions (as well as desensitize yourself). When you realize that they are mere words that can do you no actual harm unless you let them, I think the effect it has on you will be greatly lessened.
My opinions will likely be disregarded no matter what.
then your emotional responses are so far outside the normal range
I think that should be rather obvious by now. Of course, that is the behavior that I advocate.
You just stated what I already knew.
I understand that you enjoy playing devil's advocate
How am I playing the devil's advocate? I don't believe I am. You say it is a clear-cut case, but I disagree.
Using free speech in this manner is completely abusive and non-productive.
I disagree.
It's no different than if he physically assaulted a member of the victim's family.
I've outlined why I disagree with this multiple times. Not only was no physical damage done, but they need not be offended by anything this guy does. That is completely up to them.
And, to you, what do those words mean?
I'm not sure if you're trying to be funny, or if you're just an idiot, but in common law countries there's a concept known as "reasonableness".
And there's also such a thing as "subjectivity." In other words, what is "reasonable" is subjective. You'll get varying answers. Not a good way to write laws, in my opinion.
Way to go. You seem to have trouble grasping complete sentences.
This is highly offensive to me. Do you want to be sent to jail?
So, in your world view, if you shout "Go Lakers!" in the middle of a field of Chicago Bulls supporters, the 500 people that want to bash your head are idiots, and you are completely sane?
Yes. Why would they attack you for such a "petty" thing? To me, they are mere imbeciles.
What's being taken into account is the likelihood of causing harm and suffering.
I've already basically answered this, though. I believe people should not be so easily offended and should train themselves to control their emotions.
It doesn't matter to me what the current law or procedures are; I disagree with them.
Must say that you've successfully diverted the question of whether the chap maliciously caused harm and suffering
I did? I remember answering that multiple times. I stated that I didn't care what his intention was.
Very nice straw man.
Where is the straw man? I merely replied to what people were saying. I began talking about vandalism because of this comment: "Or would you like someone to deface the grave of your mother with the statement "hey, if you don't like it, just don't visit"?"
I felt that wasn't a very good analogy, so I replied to it.
I already basically answered this in another post.
In that case, I don't care about a polite society. I don't even want it.
No, it still won't. All that will accomplish is the changing of laws and such. A bunch of people believing the world is flat won't make it so (or, at least, that's what I've observed).
You may find you have difficulty pronouncing words like "Consequence" and "physical assault" through broken teeth.
The same could be said about anyone, and not just this guy.
On a more serious note, how has anyone not noticed that this dickhead just posts to troll or play devils advocate?
I'm not trolling or playing devils advocate.
Yes, you can see into 'alternate', or rather 'potential' realities.
I was just referring to the fact that I can't predict what will happen with 100% accuracy (despite what you said, I don't believe that very many things can be proven with 100% accuracy). However, if I were to take a guess, then I'd say that I wouldn't be offended.
As is harrassment.
But I'm only speaking of my opinion. I know that the laws are different than what I think they should be.
You are circling towards the extreme libertarian viewpoint that even if I explicitly request another person to commit a crime, I have done nothing wrong myself.
Circling towards? That's exactly what I think.
Meanwhile, in the real world
Meanwhile, on this website, I'm talking about my opinions. They seem to be rather unpopular, too.
why is defacing a dedicated memorial site not "vandalizing someone's property"?
Because you didn't actually destroy anything in any hard to remove manner. In any case, even if you did consider it vandalizing someone's property, I'll just have to disagree. I care more about property in the real world.
Not only that, but what qualifies as defacing a website? Posting a comment that the website owner doesn't like? I don't agree with that at all.
I'm pretty sure they started immediately with that suppressive agenda.
Yeah. They all just appeared out of nowhere. The people definitely wanted them.
But even if it didn't happen in the past, that does not mean it wouldn't happen at all. The "First they came" speech comes to mind. I'd say allowing them to slowly erode rights (such as free speech) would be a good way to do that. Start out by doing it to the unpopular people and then move your way up.
If you continue your behaviour, it's deliberate action.
I don't care if it's a deliberate action. That is irrelevant to me. Not only is it difficult to prove intent in what I believe is many circumstances, but an individual can likely train themselves (or perhaps they were already like that from the beginning) to not be so easily offended. There are no laws stating that they must be offended.
Now, you're telling that I shouldn't be so sensitive.
People can change. They do it all the time, I think. It may take some self-teaching, but I think it is possible. And in a society that advocates people to be less easily offended, I think the behavior would become more common.
But, even if they can't change, I still don't care about "harm" inflicted upon someone through the use of words.
Proclaiming hatred in front of people can and does start fights which can result in people being killed or seriously injured.
What? So if an opinion could make other people angry, that opinion should be banned? If telling people that you were an atheist would make them angry and start fights, people shouldn't be able to say that they're an atheist?
I'm going to disagree. I say that is the fault of the "idiots" who start the fights, and they are the ones who need to be dealt with.
At what point does a website owner's little rules for their own website apply to the real world? I'd rather not have a website owner say, "I don't like your comment. Therefore, you defaced my website!"
That's not how real human beings behave.
It is how some of them behave. But in a society that, in my opinion, teaches people to be easily offended, that is probably going to be the outcome.
There are worse crimes than property damage
"Worse" is subjective, and I was referring to the fact that it wasn't the same. But, in any case, I don't think saying something is worse than vandalizing someone's property.
right wing
That's probably the first time someone called me right-wing.
You idiot.
That's highly offensive to me. I hope you know that I plan on taking legal action against you!
Well, you are as good as dead anyway.
But I'm not dead right now. The dead probably don't feel anything. Also, read the last sentence. I think "sensitivity" is rather pointless.
How about this then: "What you want is irrelevant to me. I only care if I think you have a point."
That's fine. But just realize that I was saying that a lot of people believing something likely does not make it true.