Page 2 of 4 [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

25 Sep 2010, 2:03 pm

lostonearth35 wrote:
I'm from Canada and I am disgusted to hear you suggest we should die along with the Americans.
Statistically Canadians are more tolerant than Americans when it comes to race, religion and sexual preferences. We might not agree with them, but it's not as big of a deal to us. But I'm glad to see someone has the guts to say how they feel about Americans. It's only because of my fear of getting reported or kicked off this site that I have to hold in my negative feelings every day. I will probably end up in the hospital with a bleeding ulcer and the digestive system of a 90-year old chain-smoking alcoholic because I am forced to hold in all my anger and frustration at Americans and their obnoxious behavior. Before 911 I was just disgusted at them for thinking Canada is still living in the 1700's and that we live in igloos and push dog sleds while hunting for blubber. Now I frequently DO wish they were dead. :x Well maybe not all of them... :(
see my post above.

i agree that canada is wayyyyyyy better, but we are not innocent. we have blood on our hands too. i lumped us all together to illustrate that we are not blameless.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Sep 2010, 2:06 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
*facepalm* *headdesk* (can these things be done simultaneously?)

OP: you forgot to quote my very next sentence, where i added that I DON'T BELIEVE THE STATEMENT TO BE TRUE.

it is still hate speech to state that all people of any group should be slaughtered. does not matter which group we are talking about.

Your next sentence was irrelevant.

So, you are saying I have committed the act of hate speech against a group of which I am a member? Who am I supposedly offending then? Myself?



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

25 Sep 2010, 2:15 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
*facepalm* *headdesk* (can these things be done simultaneously?)

OP: you forgot to quote my very next sentence, where i added that I DON'T BELIEVE THE STATEMENT TO BE TRUE.

it is still hate speech to state that all people of any group should be slaughtered. does not matter which group we are talking about.

Your next sentence was irrelevant.

So, you are saying I have committed the act of hate speech against a group of which I am a member? Who am I supposedly offending then? Myself?
you don't think it's true either, obviously, so i have no idea why you posted this. to incite anger perhaps? to make a point? it's rather silly if you don't believe it.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

25 Sep 2010, 2:31 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
*facepalm* *headdesk* (can these things be done simultaneously?)

OP: you forgot to quote my very next sentence, where i added that I DON'T BELIEVE THE STATEMENT TO BE TRUE.

it is still hate speech to state that all people of any group should be slaughtered. does not matter which group we are talking about.

Your next sentence was irrelevant.

So, you are saying I have committed the act of hate speech against a group of which I am a member?


Yes. A kind of Uncle Ruckus. ;)
You might be surprised how common that is. Then again you might not.

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Who am I supposedly offending then? Myself?


You might offend a few people who don't want to be murdered.
You would offend a lot of people over here who have been looking forward to the NFL season.
Maybe if you could hang on until after the Superbowl and relocate the teams abroad...
We have a nice stadium here at Wembley you know.


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

25 Sep 2010, 2:31 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
you don't think it's true either, obviously, so i have no idea why you posted this. to incite anger perhaps? to make a point? it's rather silly if you don't believe it.

He *asked about it*. He didn't state it was true.

It is not silly to discuss things you disagree with.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

25 Sep 2010, 2:40 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you don't think it's true either, obviously, so i have no idea why you posted this. to incite anger perhaps? to make a point? it's rather silly if you don't believe it.

He *asked about it*. He didn't state it was true.

It is not silly to discuss things you disagree with.

so you think he was asking an honest question? i don't think so... i think he was making a point of sorts: that it is okay to say this kind of thing about americans, but not muslims.

but it is not the same situation, because he doesn't actually believe it to be true. which makes it silly. it would not have the same effect as other threads composed of hate speech.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Sep 2010, 5:00 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
you don't think it's true either, obviously, so i have no idea why you posted this. to incite anger perhaps? to make a point? it's rather silly if you don't believe it.

Well, no, but I think the question is potentially interesting, and I asked a number of very interesting follow-up questions.

I also made a point, as you have said in the past that you thought our attitudes towards Islam were inconsistent. I think this is consistent.

I don't think it is silly if I don't believe it. I think that things I don't believe can be very interesting discussion topics.

hyperlexian wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
He *asked about it*. He didn't state it was true.

It is not silly to discuss things you disagree with.

so you think he was asking an honest question? i don't think so... i think he was making a point of sorts: that it is okay to say this kind of thing about americans, but not muslims.

but it is not the same situation, because he doesn't actually believe it to be true. which makes it silly. it would not have the same effect as other threads composed of hate speech.


I asked a NUMBER of honest questions with the hypothetical being the lead-in. Frankly, I would find a large number of possible responses interesting. Disgust is the least interesting response though. However, if someone really thinks the world would be better if certain Americans suddenly died, I would think that it would be interesting to get their perspective on the matter as well. Maybe they actually do have a reasoned out response. Maybe they have a different perspective. Maybe it is nothing. Often anybody's perspective is just nonsense anyway, so maybe different nonsense this time.

Secondly, I actually am fine saying the same kind of thing about every group in existence.

Thirdly, why does it matter whether I think it is true? In one sense it can't really be hate speech, but in another sense it isn't distinguishable from your definition of hate speech. I haven't seen many threads "composed of hate speech".



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

25 Sep 2010, 7:07 pm

What is an honest question?



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

25 Sep 2010, 7:55 pm

ikorack wrote:
What is an honest question?
the way i intended to use the phrase is whether it was a question for which he wanted an answer (honest), or a question for which he wanted a reaction. but that was just my own wording- i don't think it is universally meant that way.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Sep 2010, 8:15 pm

ikorack wrote:
What is an honest question?

The opposite of a dishonest question.

hyperlexian wrote:
the way i intended to use the phrase is whether it was a question for which he wanted an answer (honest), or a question for which he wanted a reaction. but that was just my own wording- i don't think it is universally meant that way.

I don't see the distinction as relevant. I wouldn't ask an internet forum a question for which I really cared what kind of answer I got. The point is to get interesting answers, and I don't know how that is different than "a reaction", other than the fact that I find the reaction of disgust and other similar ones to be the least interesting sorts. Creative responses are always good, but not fake creative responses.



techn0teen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 663

25 Sep 2010, 10:55 pm

"America" also includes Mexico and Canada. The United States is the official name to avoid confusion in international politics and policies.

Basically, you are trying to justify a holocaust based on nationality.

It is very similar to the line of reasoning Hitler used for his holocaust, but he mainly used ethnicity rather than nationality.

So, to sum up this whole discussion: It makes no rational, fair, or good sense to persecute an individual based on characteristics out of his or her own control or characteristics of a group he or she belongs to. Everyone should judge the individual solely based on his or her actions.

Did you ever consider that the main reason the United States has such a strict and somewhat aggressive foreign policy because there are countries that give ammunition to people with backwards thinking such as yourself?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

25 Sep 2010, 11:13 pm

techn0teen wrote:
"America" also includes Mexico and Canada. The United States is the official name to avoid confusion in international politics and policies.

Words have multiple definitions, therefore your statement is invalid. "America" means whatever I want it to mean. If I call a country "America", then it is America. If I call a region "America" then it is America. If I name a child "America" then it has the name of America. Your statement here is as relevant as saying that a person cannot have the name of Joseph because you've already met another Joseph.

Quote:
Basically, you are trying to justify a holocaust based on nationality.

No, I am asking the question. You can come up with the justifications.

Quote:
It is very similar to the line of reasoning Hitler used for his holocaust, but he mainly used ethnicity rather than nationality.

Yes, and if there was a transnational Jewish conspiracy to destroy society, undermine one's people, and cause great suffering, then a Holocaust of them would make a lot of sense, just as CS Lewis points out (as quoted below) how if there were actually witches going around hurting people, it would not be wrong to not permit a witch to live. The point of disgust is that there are no witches, and that Jews are not engaged in so much evil.

CS Lewis wrote:
But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things. If we did-if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did. There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact. It may be a great advance in knowledge not to believe in witches: there is no moral advance in not executing them when you do not think they are there. You would not call a man humane for ceasing to set mousetraps if he did so because he believed there were no mice in the house.


Quote:
So, to sum up this whole discussion: It makes no rational, fair, or good sense to persecute an individual based on characteristics out of his or her own control or characteristics of a group he or she belongs to. Everyone should judge the individual solely based on his or her actions.

Why? I mean, you just made an assertion, and an assertion that many people state, but very very few actually believe in practice. We continually judge people for things outside of their control. The prevalence of this phenomena has become so prevalent that moral philosophers have started talking about the category of "moral luck", in which people are lauded or blamed for things outside of their real control. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/

Even further, utilitarian philosophy outright disagrees with you, by holding that it is rational and good sense to persecute individuals based upon the potential utility gained from that without regard of whether the individual controls these traits or not. While personal control might correlated with utility gained, you require a 1:1 correspondence or somewhere close.

So, in short, you are making a much more ethically controversial claim than you actually recognize.

Quote:
Did you ever consider that the main reason the United States has such a strict and somewhat aggressive foreign policy because there are countries that give ammunition to people with backwards thinking such as yourself?

It is a possibility. Certainly a theory you could put forward. I am less willing to accept your idea as valid though, as I think other factors are more relevant.



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

25 Sep 2010, 11:47 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
ikorack wrote:
What is an honest question?
the way i intended to use the phrase is whether it was a question for which he wanted an answer (honest), or a question for which he wanted a reaction. but that was just my own wording- i don't think it is universally meant that way.


An answer is a reaction.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

26 Sep 2010, 12:39 am

ikorack wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
ikorack wrote:
What is an honest question?
the way i intended to use the phrase is whether it was a question for which he wanted an answer (honest), or a question for which he wanted a reaction. but that was just my own wording- i don't think it is universally meant that way.


An answer is a reaction.
hahaha yes technically true, but they can also be distinct from each other.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

26 Sep 2010, 12:56 am

of course they're distinct but your whole statement becomes a bit pointless if you consider that what people might count as an answer can vary greatly. people can't understand your argument if you use vague terms like that.



Quartz11
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2010
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,237
Location: New England

26 Sep 2010, 10:10 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Yes, and if there was a transnational Jewish conspiracy to destroy society, undermine one's people, and cause great suffering, then a Holocaust of them would make a lot of sense, just as CS Lewis points out (as quoted below) how if there were actually witches going around hurting people, it would not be wrong to not permit a witch to live. The point of disgust is that there are no witches, and that Jews are not engaged in so much evil.


If there was a transnational conspiracy to destroy society, then those responsible should be targeted for punishment and the general population should have been spared.