I look forward to your reaction when some random retard mocks the death of one of your loved ones.
Assuming that I'd be offended, you'd see my reaction, and such a thing would happen in the first place, of course. As I said to two other people, my bias would likely not indicate that my previous position was "wrong."
No, it wasn't. Its existence wasn't even unavoidable. Not only that, but I don't care if it was unavoidable. I think people in general need to stop being so easily offended. I'm not in favor of limiting speech because they are easily offended.
Or would you like someone to deface the grave of your mother with the statement
Wouldn't that be vandalizing someone's physical property? I don't think that's the same thing at all.
So, when your loved ones die, you'd be happy with someone putting posters up around the church and outside the house where the gatherings are held saying how funny they thought it was?
I'm not sure how I'd feel about it as I don't think I can see into alternate realities, but, in my opinion, I don't think I'd be happy. That does not mean I'd be offended, however. I don't think I would be.
But, as I said to someone else, me changing my position because it happened to me doesn't necessarily prove that my previous position was "wrong." It would, however, probably indicate that I was acting based on emotion.
It's what's called "Consequence".
I call that physically attacking someone. But I suppose it's both (as well as something I think should be illegal).
In your little utopia
You call it a utopia and then proceed to call it a place where the environment could be "nasty"? Interesting.
I rather think your attitude would be somewhat different in that case,
You didn't seem to state that as an absolute fact, but I disagree. What would that mean? That I would be more biased than usual? Even if I did change my mind, that wouldn't mean that my previous belief was "wrong."
That said, I don't think it would be so simple to offend me. Unfortunately, I don't think that there will be a simple way to test this as I don't think that anyone in my family would post anything on the internet if someone they knew died.
Sure, but there's a difference between unintentionally causing offense and willingly doing so by targeting an individual. That last is distastefull and should be punishable IMHO.
I don't really care what their intent was so long as it remained mere words. For one thing, unless they openly state what their intent was (and I think this guy did), it's difficult to know. Second of all, what does it matter? These people could probably just choose to not be offended. Essentially, I'm saying that people need "thicker skins."
But, to a certain point, you need to respect other peoples' respect for the dead.
Whether I need to do that or not depends on who you ask. In any case, they can respect the dead if they want, but that does not require me to agree with them.
You don't understand, at all, the role of affect in human society and social cohesion.
I don't see where sensitivity is needed. People get together to accomplish things that they probably couldn't do alone. As long as everyone isn't killing each other, I don't see how a lack of sensitivity in some areas would make society crumble.
Essentially, you will lose this cultural war in almost any arena you fight it.
Perhaps now. But that might not be true in the future.
I suppose I should just say it. Your comments are beginning to offend me. Don't think for a minute that I won't take action against you.
I can't wait for the people who'll come howling about censorship... which this wasn't.
Just because the speech was illegal or "offensive" in some peoples' opinions, that does not mean it isn't censorship to censor and/or punish him for saying it.
We, as a society
Certainly not me. Perhaps most people.
If you can cause other people just as much harm by impersonating their dead daughter as you could by punching them in the face, why treat it differently?
In my opinion, it's because whether it harms them or not is completely up to them. You don't have to be "overly sensitive" or be offended by anything you see.
That said, I'm highly offended by your entire post. It harmed me as much as it would have if you would have punched me! Therefore, you should be thrown in jail.
The jerk in question was able to interact with the victim's family without actually having to interact with or be near them.
But I don't consider that a bad thing. In fact, I think that works nicely. If you don't want to read or listen to something, then just don't do it. Likewise, they needn't be offended (as far as I know).
I still don't consider the (potential) loss of potential gain to be harm. Whether or not it 'should' be illegal is another matter to me.
As for ad revenue, I've always felt that that is irrelevant. They're making money on ads, not on the content. The reasons people are visiting their website is another matter and is completely up to them. I see it as no different than any other website making money off of ads.
However, this common "replication doesn't hurt anyone" argument is not convincing when examined under a critical light.
That would depend on who you ask. I don't really think a potential loss of potential profit is harmful since they never had it to begin with. I see copyright as just a means to maximize potential future gain (profit) for artists.
Downloading a Hollywood movie for free is like constantly stealing all of the money and food from the creators of said movie and then watching them suffer and die. File sharers are murderers who kill artists from the comfort of their own homes.
There is a difference between playing a game where there is some generally reasonable reason for what you are doing
"Reasonable" is subjective. I don't see the harm in being a "sick sadistic freak" in a video game. I think that's fun, and I have no real desire to do that in real life. That said, I've seen quite a few people act like "sick sadistic freaks" in video games.
Otherwise, I don't mind penalties as long as they just add difficulty and don't just result in a game over screen.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I don't really agree with anti-hate-speech laws. But I do think it would be vandalizing someone's property.
I know that. I know that disagreeing with some people could cause you to get hurt, but I will support someone's ability to disagree.
I look forward to your reaction when some random retard mocks the death of one of your loved ones.
Assuming that I'd be offended, you'd see my reaction, and such a thing would happen in the first place, of course. As I said to two other people, my bias would likely not indicate that my previous position was "wrong."
I suppose it is. I just don't believe that many people thinking something makes it true, I guess.
I would rather the occasional fistfight than the sue everyone for everything alternative.
Sue everyone? I didn't say they should be able to do that, either. I think absolutely nothing should happen.
hang on....if its illegal speech....don't you expect it to be censored?
Yes. I suppose I do. But what's your point? If they censor illegal speech, it is still censorship.
and offensive speech is illegal in the UK, who decides if its offensive....a jury...
If true, what a great system!
What next? You'll be defending rapists claiming women shouldn't dress provocatively if they don't want to be raped?
Explain to me how you can prevent physical harm to your body by merely being thick-skinned.
which was unavoidable for the family to visit.
No, it wasn't. Its existence wasn't even unavoidable. Not only that, but I don't care if it was unavoidable. I think people in general need to stop being so easily offended. I'm not in favor of limiting speech because they are easily offended.
Or would you like someone to deface the grave of your mother with the statement
Wouldn't that be vandalizing someone's physical property? I don't think that's the same thing at all.
So, when your loved ones die, you'd be happy with someone putting posters up around the church and outside the house where the gatherings are held saying how funny they thought it was?
I'm not sure how I'd feel about it as I don't think I can see into alternate realities, but, in my opinion, I don't think I'd be happy. That does not mean I'd be offended, however. I don't think I would be.
But, as I said to someone else, me changing my position because it happened to me doesn't necessarily prove that my previous position was "wrong." It would, however, probably indicate that I was acting based on emotion.
It's what's called "Consequence".
I call that physically attacking someone. But I suppose it's both (as well as something I think should be illegal).
In your little utopia
You call it a utopia and then proceed to call it a place where the environment could be "nasty"? Interesting.
In other words, congress itself shall not set any rules abridging speech, but the individual states may.
Well, yes. The first amendment. But then there's the fourteenth amendment.
I rather think your attitude would be somewhat different in that case,
You didn't seem to state that as an absolute fact, but I disagree. What would that mean? That I would be more biased than usual? Even if I did change my mind, that wouldn't mean that my previous belief was "wrong."
That said, I don't think it would be so simple to offend me. Unfortunately, I don't think that there will be a simple way to test this as I don't think that anyone in my family would post anything on the internet if someone they knew died.
Sure, but there's a difference between unintentionally causing offense and willingly doing so by targeting an individual. That last is distastefull and should be punishable IMHO.
I don't really care what their intent was so long as it remained mere words. For one thing, unless they openly state what their intent was (and I think this guy did), it's difficult to know. Second of all, what does it matter? These people could probably just choose to not be offended. Essentially, I'm saying that people need "thicker skins."
That and I support free speech.
But, to a certain point, you need to respect other peoples' respect for the dead.
Whether I need to do that or not depends on who you ask. In any case, they can respect the dead if they want, but that does not require me to agree with them.
You don't understand, at all, the role of affect in human society and social cohesion.
I don't see where sensitivity is needed. People get together to accomplish things that they probably couldn't do alone. As long as everyone isn't killing each other, I don't see how a lack of sensitivity in some areas would make society crumble.
Essentially, you will lose this cultural war in almost any arena you fight it.
Perhaps now. But that might not be true in the future.
I suppose I should just say it. Your comments are beginning to offend me. Don't think for a minute that I won't take action against you.
Respect for the dead, especially loved ones, and the sensitivity that comes with that, is essential to human societies.
I disagree. These people are dead. I needn't respect them at all. Nor do I think you need sensitivity for society to function.
The kind of thick-skinnedness you're calling for is neither desirable nor realistic
It's both desirable and realistic to me.
and I believe most people
What most people want is irrelevant to me. I only care if I think they (or something) has a point.
I'd rather have that (assuming that it's even true) than people getting into fist fights because of a mere disagreement.
I can't wait for the people who'll come howling about censorship... which this wasn't.
Just because the speech was illegal or "offensive" in some peoples' opinions, that does not mean it isn't censorship to censor and/or punish him for saying it.
We, as a society
Certainly not me. Perhaps most people.
If you can cause other people just as much harm by impersonating their dead daughter as you could by punching them in the face, why treat it differently?
In my opinion, it's because whether it harms them or not is completely up to them. You don't have to be "overly sensitive" or be offended by anything you see.
That said, I'm highly offended by your entire post. It harmed me as much as it would have if you would have punched me! Therefore, you should be thrown in jail.
The jerk in question was able to interact with the victim's family without actually having to interact with or be near them.
But I don't consider that a bad thing. In fact, I think that works nicely. If you don't want to read or listen to something, then just don't do it. Likewise, they needn't be offended (as far as I know).
I'm highly offended by your comment. You need to be put in jail!
It'd be the same if he'd sprayed grafitti on a gravestone.
Except that he didn't actually vandalize anyone's property...
Exactly. If anyone disagrees with what you say, they should be beaten until they understand! That'll prove that you're not being overly sensitive!
You will.
Except if you don't, of course. It really depends on the person.
I still don't consider the (potential) loss of potential gain to be harm. Whether or not it 'should' be illegal is another matter to me.
As for ad revenue, I've always felt that that is irrelevant. They're making money on ads, not on the content. The reasons people are visiting their website is another matter and is completely up to them. I see it as no different than any other website making money off of ads.
However, this common "replication doesn't hurt anyone" argument is not convincing when examined under a critical light.
That would depend on who you ask. I don't really think a potential loss of potential profit is harmful since they never had it to begin with. I see copyright as just a means to maximize potential future gain (profit) for artists.
Downloading a Hollywood movie for free is like constantly stealing all of the money and food from the creators of said movie and then watching them suffer and die. File sharers are murderers who kill artists from the comfort of their own homes.
There is a difference between playing a game where there is some generally reasonable reason for what you are doing
"Reasonable" is subjective. I don't see the harm in being a "sick sadistic freak" in a video game. I think that's fun, and I have no real desire to do that in real life. That said, I've seen quite a few people act like "sick sadistic freaks" in video games.
Otherwise, I don't mind penalties as long as they just add difficulty and don't just result in a game over screen.
Adding gameplay depth by making the player sit out a few rounds?