|
Post by DustyDragoon on Nov 19, 2007 10:49:57 GMT -5
Let me begin by stating, I am a white male, non religious, conservative viewing, Canadian of Scottish background and have been married for 22 years to the same lady and have 2 grown children. That out of the way, I have notice as of lately, more and more racial slurs in this forum and in the lobby. I hear the much abused term "Freedom of Speech". "I can say whatever I want because I have Freedom of Speech in my country and therefore suck it up". BS
With any freedom comes a fair amount of responsibility. If you wish to use the term that obviously insult others (eg black person, Jew, Chink, and so on) then be prepared to except the consequences of those actions. I completely agree with the person that stated in another part of this forum, that those that use these terms of hate are nothing more than cowards. I would love to see a white boy run downtown Harlem screaming "Ni.gg.er" I'd give him ............. maybe 2 secs to live. Using these terms in any form is not freedom of speech but freedom of hate, and to the best of my knowledge no country has such a law. Actually in the country I live in you can be put in prison for using these terms the way they are expressed in our lobby and forums. They are put under a section called The Hate Crimes Act feel "free" to view it. Those of you that like to abuse others using these terms, I can only pity you for your ignorance of other races, religions, sex's. You have apparently no idea as to how wonderful our world is due to our differences. You have no idea how many different ideas have been put forth due to the contributions of those you wish to hate. Your life has been made better do to alot of the contributions of the same people you wish to try to put beneath you, which in reality they are so far above you, but because of your hate you cannot see them. Open your mind wider than the .00001 hole you have it opened at now and you may see how much you are actually missing.
Thanks DustyDragoon
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 19, 2007 11:10:48 GMT -5
people ALWAYS forget that it's not a COMPLETE freedom and forget the second part of the stated right:
"...........until it infringes upon the rights of others"
It's basically HALF of a term used by "the ignorants" as an excuse to be rude (yet it instead it truly DOES show their ingorance, lol)
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Nov 19, 2007 11:24:46 GMT -5
Freedom of speach dosnt mean Freedom to be Racist Racist Abuse of any Kind is a Offence in most countrys it is in the UK hell we can be arrested for saying half the things these Kids say in the Lobby these days!
However policing the Internet chat rooms is almost a imposible task so sad but true some smacktards will always call fellow citizens of various nationalities Racist Names and telling them not to do so will just make them do it more the best way to stop them is to mute or ignore them after all these kids only do it to make themselves Look "BIG" to the other Kids in the Lobby Chat Room when infact to all the other people in the lobby they actually make them selves look small!
Most Chat rooms have a Filter for abusive/ racist language and as soon as someone says such words they are ejected from the Chat Room its just a Shame Game Spy never thought of including such a Filter in there Software.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 19, 2007 11:33:34 GMT -5
OK liberals, put up or shut up. List here the words you dictate to be illegal. Then list the penaltys for saying those words. I also would like to know how you'll inforce your word bans. Just telling people I'm an ignerent racist isn't dealing with the issue. I like what MMV said
"...........until it infringes upon the rights of others"
In America, you do not have the right to not be offended.
So what you liberals are saying is the next time a gay pride parade passes by a church, its ok for the church goers to beat them up cause they're offended?
You guys can call me names all you want. IDC. What the debate is about is making words "illegal" to say. The first law the Nazi's passed when they came to power was that jews couldn't swim in public pools. I'm saying you libs are putting us on this same path.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 19, 2007 11:46:08 GMT -5
Freedom of speach dosnt mean Freedom to be Racist Racist Abuse of any Kind is a Offence in most countrys it is in the UK hell we can be arrested for saying half the things these Kids say in the Lobby these days!
(awsome, Stalism rules the UK. I guess you'de turn me into you UK SS officers eh bop?)
However policing the Internet chat rooms is almost a imposible task so sad but true some smacktards will always call fellow citizens of various nationalities Racist Names and telling them not to do so will just make them do it more the best way to stop them is to mute or ignore them after all these kids only do it to make themselves Look "BIG" to the other Kids in the Lobby Chat Room when infact to all the other people in the lobby they actually make them selves look small!
(Bopper, the internet is totally policable. what you need is more SS to go and pick up vilolators in the dead of night and drag them off to the re-edicaton camps)
Most Chat rooms have a Filter for abusive/ racist language and as soon as someone says such words they are ejected from the Chat Room its just a Shame Game Spy never thought of including such a Filter in there Software.
(Filters and what nots are totally cool with me. I don't want my kids seeing a bunch of nasty slurs when they go online.)
So list the words you liberals want to ban. Then tell me how you'll punish the violaters. How will you inforce your word bans?
|
|
|
Post by Bantams on Nov 19, 2007 12:46:01 GMT -5
TGS I aint Bopper
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 19, 2007 13:05:50 GMT -5
TGS I aint Bopper oops, my bad
|
|
|
Post by DustyDragoon on Nov 19, 2007 14:18:46 GMT -5
Actually TGS I never stated that any words should be made illeagal, I just state we as responsible, intellegent human beings use the words in a responsible manner. Any one who is able to communicate in these forums I beleive to be intellegent and capable of using it responsibly if they see fit to. Unfortunately there are those that have the brain power and the capabilities to use it accordingly and yet "choose" not to. I put choose in quotations because that is what it all comes down to, what choices we decide to make. Do we deface anything and all that we disagree with or should we try to understand it and try to further ourselves by doing so. Do mock or even kill those that disagree with our point of view or should we sit down and see what we have in common and start from there. By calling a person of the black race a "Ni.gg.er" are you not putting up walls around that person by singling them out from other races and in such stating you are better than they and they should be imprisoned on there own? You use an example of what Hitler did during his reign, he also imprisoned and murdered thousands of different people of different faiths. I doubt very much that is what Bantams is trying to get across. So you ask me what words I would like banned, and my retort to you is tell me which words human beings should be using and how we can further ourselves as a united race by using the words I would prefer not to see? DustyDragoon
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Nov 19, 2007 14:22:25 GMT -5
Freedom of speech is a responsibility as much as it is a right. Imagine this scenario:
Prospective Employer: "Hello, TheBadSeed, I understand by this job application that TheGreatSatan worked for you for approximately 2 years, what can you tell me about his work performance?"
TheBadSeed: "TheGreatSatan appeared to be a model employee, showed up to work at on time every day, did a great job. Unfortunately I found out he was a thief and had to fire him for imbezzling."
Prospective Employer: "Thank you, that information was very helpful." (sound of paper ripping)
The fact is, "free speech" is curtailed as it is in many, many ways and places. In this instance, I might have lied out my ass, and cost you a job. This is called "slander" and if you can prove it, it would end me at the paying end of a civil lawsuit. Even if it's completely true, if I could not prove it in a court of law, or if I neglected to file charges, you could sue me for what I said. Why? They were only words, we have freedom of speech. The fact is, they were words designed to cause harm. Are the words "n.gger" or "k.ke" or "sp.c" or "f.g" not designed to cause harm when said to someone in a derogatory manner? Are those people not entitled to compensation for the pain and suffering you have caused them? Think that's outlandish? Our legal system is filled with cases of pain and suffering awards. Ask any psychologist and they will tell you that mental pain and anguish often has longer lasting and more serious effects on your health than physical injury.
To say the first ammendment clause of "Freedom of Speech" means you should be able to say whatever you want, whenever you want without consequence holds about as much common sense as saying Bill Gates ought to be able to hire his own private army, equip them with M1A1 tanks and rocket lauchers and march them on the headquarters of whatever rival software company is bugging him that week and have them all point their weapons menacingly at their building. After all, we have the second ammendment "Right to Bear Arms" right? As long as noone actually fires, it should be legal, right?
Personally, Im all for being able to challenge someone who's launched a personal insult to a duel. Unfortunately, someone decided a long time ago that the old west rules of engagement were a little too uncivilized, so, what recourse to we have now? Moreover, what fear does the insulter have? None. Why not be able to launch civil lawsuits for racial slurs, the same way you can when someone slanders you or libels you.
|
|
|
Post by DustyDragoon on Nov 19, 2007 16:56:33 GMT -5
Extremely well put TBS. Very hard arguement to debate. I am impressed! ;D
|
|
|
Post by MMV on Nov 19, 2007 17:16:16 GMT -5
List here the words you dictate to be illegal you, as well as others, WELL know the words that aren't "PC" or shouldn't be used. it's the words that you/others have to "respell" with ...'s or %'s or #'s or @'s. there ARE other words that those with a higher education can use that are allowed without letter displacement. and tgs? even YOU have a VERY long journey ahead of you before you're 1/10th of 1% as much of a non-liberal conservative as I am. (your "you're a liberal!" argument only works on liberals, lol)
|
|
|
Post by TheBadSeed on Nov 19, 2007 19:37:46 GMT -5
Extremely well put TBS. Very hard arguement to debate. I am impressed! ;D TGS will undoubtedly try, its what he does..
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Nov 19, 2007 20:05:56 GMT -5
I would love to see a white boy run downtown Harlem screaming "Ni.gg.er" I'd give him ............. maybe 2 secs to live. Well, this is your lucky day! Here is a clip for you... img.youtube.com/vi/74ohI_Q8KQQ/default.jpg That's -> "Rex Kramer, Danger Seeker"
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Nov 19, 2007 20:19:10 GMT -5
"...........until it infringes upon the rights of others" In America, you do not have the right to not be offended. So what you liberals are saying is the next time a gay pride parade passes by a church, its ok for the church goers to beat them up cause they're offended? That will change soon. The entire politically correct movement will become like newspeak soon enough. No, the liberals do not hold religous values true, unless they are fanatical in nature. Thus you will not see any church goers bashing hairy couples dressed up in leatherettes (men and women!) being condonded. A strong metaphore, yet not entirely off base. The Nazi comment shows a precident where usurping the rights of a group or class or division of people being used as a building block to total ethnic cleansing. Yes, the Nazis had a very limited group of people that were allowed to exist. Even among this class there were huge limits on what could and could not be said.
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Nov 19, 2007 20:19:47 GMT -5
TGS I aint Bopper Since when?
|
|
|
Post by DrShot on Nov 19, 2007 20:31:13 GMT -5
Extremely well put TBS. Very hard arguement to debate. I am impressed! ;D He is saying he thought you were just a stupid nigar, you showed him. White Trash Power! If only he knew. I believe everything used in context is the key. Mel Brooks routinely made light of Jews/ Blacks and many other groups of people... for humor. Joey does not like that kind of humor so joey is smart enough to avoid Mel's movies. If Joey is not that smart, he should not have the government there to cover for his inability to determine that Mel's movies will routinely upset him and put a censor on the content of Mel's productions. Rating systems are different, they are based on age classification up to what the US gov has determined where 'adult' begins (18 yrs). I personally believe that anyone can be a nigar. I understand the term is limiter to black peoples, yet I have known many a non black nigar. How about African - American, WTF is that about? The Black guy living 3 houses down is a Black guy. He has never been to Africa and has no desire to go there. Is Dusty a Scottish-Canadian? rofl, doubt he tells people that...
|
|
|
Post by DustyDragoon on Nov 19, 2007 21:12:06 GMT -5
Sure Doc, thats all well and good, but this is not a movie theater were I can choose what movie I wish to view. This is the world wide net in a gaming room that has no racial slurs attached to it nor are there suppose to be, so why is it some feel they have to abuse that forum in order to amuse themselves by demeaning others. Mel Brooks also wrote those movies in good humour and are not set up to actually hurt others but to have them laugh at themselves as he does, (Mel Brooks is Jewish). What I am talking about here is not a form of "Humour"but a form of violence. People who demean others by using racial, sexist remarks in order to hurt others. PS I do tell others that I am a Canadian who Parent was Scottish born. Don't really see any humour in what Hitler did or what the KKK stands for (Though Mel Brooks did make light of both in "Blazing Saddles" and "Springtime In Germany for Hitler"). But he was not making fun of the Jewish race or the Negro race but instead making fun of how ridiculace racists are. BTW Monty Python uses his humour in much the same way it is just that his is a little more discreat lol.
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 19, 2007 23:23:20 GMT -5
Actually TGS I never stated that any words should be made illeagal, I just state we as responsible, intellegent human beings use the words in a responsible manner. (I never said racial slurs are good. I gather you agree with me then DD when someone says (insert racial slur here) they shouldn't be sued, jailed, or clensed) Any one who is able to communicate in these forums I beleive to be intellegent and capable of using it responsibly if they see fit to. (I agree. DD, I've been playin civ on here with you forever. I have nothing but respect your opinions. I'm not trying to be racist here. I'm trying to make a point that banning "words" with laws is a slippery slope to doom) Unfortunately there are those that have the brain power and the capabilities to use it accordingly and yet "choose" not to. (Guessin this is about me here. I don't denie I'm and "idiot" as you all like to point out every other line) I put choose in quotations because that is what it all comes down to, what choices we decide to make. (I agree. Judge people by the choices they make. Not by there skin/religion/sex) Do we deface anything and all that we disagree with or should we try to understand it and try to further ourselves by doing so. (This conversation makes us all stronger. It brings us, free people, in this free place, having free debate, closer together. Its a beautiful thing ) Do mock or even kill those that disagree with our point of view or should we sit down and see what we have in common and start from there. (good idea. me and u got somethin in commen DD. We both agree that "words" should not be illegal) By calling a person of the black race a "Ni.gg.er" are you not putting up walls around that person by singling them out from other races and in such stating you are better than they and they should be imprisoned on there own? (Callin someone any slur, racial or not, is wrong.) You use an example of what Hitler did during his reign, he also imprisoned and murdered thousands of different people of different faiths. (And the german people just stood by and watched) I doubt very much that is what Bantams is trying to get across. So you ask me what words I would like banned, and my retort to you is tell me which words human beings should be using and how we can further ourselves as a united race by using the words I would prefer not to see? (a very honerable motive from a very honerable civver. So you agree with me that "laws" shouldn't be made to ban certin "words" right?) DustyDragoon
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 20, 2007 0:03:18 GMT -5
Freedom of speech is a responsibility as much as it is a right.
(I agree)
Imagine this scenario:
Prospective Employer: "Hello, TheBadSeed, I understand by this job application that TheGreatSatan worked for you for approximately 2 years, what can you tell me about his work performance?" TheBadSeed: "TheGreatSatan appeared to be a model employee, showed up to work at on time every day, did a great job. Unfortunately I found out he was a thief and had to fire him for imbezzling." Prospective Employer: "Thank you, that information was very helpful." (sound of paper ripping)
The fact is, "free speech" is curtailed as it is in many, many ways and places. In this instance, I might have lied out my ass, and cost you a job. This is called "slander" and if you can prove it, it would end me at the paying end of a civil lawsuit.
(Slander is a crime. If I lie in court, they call that pergury. If I go down the street yelling (insert racial, sexist, religious slurs here), it is also a crime. Its called desturbing the peace. Crime is bad mmmmkay)
Even if it's completely true, if I could not prove it in a court of law, or if I neglected to file charges, you could sue me for what I said.
(I have to prove that what you said caused X amount of damage. If you just said "TGS is a (insert racial, sexist, religious slurs here), for 1, he'd tear up your resume most likely, and I would have a hard time proving that you damaged me)
Why? They were only words, we have freedom of speech.
(But you crossed the line when u infringed on my rights. The issue isn't weather you said I was stealing. The issue is did TBS use the "word" (insert racial, sexist, religious slurs here) when he talked about me. And If I can prove he used one of the banned "words", its off to the camps with him)
The fact is, they were words designed to cause harm.
(ok, so make a list of words you deam "harmful" and ban them with laws. Its not the word that is racial, sexist, religious, its the context in which it is used)
Are the words "n.gger" or "k.ke" or "sp.c" or "f.g" not designed to cause harm when said to someone in a derogatory manner?
(Yup, they are harmful when used that way. Thats why you need to make a list of these harmful words TBS and pass laws against saying them)
Are those people not entitled to compensation for the pain and suffering you have caused them?
(no, they are not. If I am causing a problem, they can call the cops and complain that I'm desturbing the peace. you do not have the right to not be offended. Can you imagine a world where everything that anyone thought was offencive was banned? There would be nothing left.)
Think that's outlandish? Our legal system is filled with cases of pain and suffering awards. Ask any psychologist and they will tell you that mental pain and anguish often has longer lasting and more serious effects on your health than physical injury.
(lol, if you gotta go see a psychologist cause u got called a (insert racial, sexist, religious slurs here) I'de say you take your, race, sex, religon, a bit to seriously)
To say the first ammendment clause of "Freedom of Speech" means you should be able to say whatever you want, whenever you want without consequence holds about as much common sense as saying Bill Gates ought to be able to hire his own private army, equip them with M1A1 tanks and rocket lauchers and march them on the headquarters of whatever rival software company is bugging him that week and have them all point their weapons menacingly at their building.
(until you infring on the rights of others, you are free to say whatever)
After all, we have the second ammendment "Right to Bear Arms" right? As long as noone actually fires, it should be legal, right?
(Free speach will be first to go, the right to bear arms will be next)
Personally, Im all for being able to challenge someone who's launched a personal insult to a duel.
(If I'm infringing on your rights, you can call the cops and they will take me away for distrurbing the peace)
Unfortunately, someone decided a long time ago that the old west rules of engagement were a little too uncivilized, so, what recourse to we have now?
(Call the cops. I'm not allowed to follow u around yelling (insert racial, sexist, religious slurs here). That infringes on your rights)
Moreover, what fear does the insulter have? None.
(Call the cops. I've seen it done. I used to work at a bar.)
Why not be able to launch civil lawsuits for racial slurs, the same way you can when someone slanders you or libels you.
(Now you'll have everyone recording every word you say hoping you say one of the banned words so they can sue you. Like that Dog the Bounty Hunter guy. Getting sued for using (insert racial, sexist, religious slurs here) in a private phone call)
|
|
|
Post by thegreatsatan on Nov 20, 2007 0:20:36 GMT -5
you, as well as others, WELL know the words that aren't "PC" or shouldn't be used.
it's the words that you/others have to "respell" with ...'s or %'s or #'s or @'s.
(ok MMV, make me a list of the words you dictate should be illegal. Tell me what penalty you dictate someone should get for saying a banned "word".)
there ARE other words that those with a higher education can use that are allowed without letter displacement.
(ok, I get it, I'm an idiot. Thanks for reminding me again)
and tgs? even YOU have a VERY long journey ahead of you before you're 1/10th of 1% as much of a non-liberal conservative as I am.
(lol. Now your callin me a liberal? MMV, there is nothing more anti-freedom then the banning of "words" by laws. You sound like Stalin. Protect the little people from the evil words with your SS police)
your "you're a liberal!" argument only works on liberals, lol
(MMV, feel free to answer my challenge to you. Post a list of the "words" you wanna ban. Post what the penalty should be if you violate the ban. I'de also like to know how you think your bans should be inforced. That should be easy for a rock hard, freedom loving, concervitive like yourself)
|
|