NationStates Jolt Archive

It was his damn right to publish these cartoons, but of course some braindead bozos had to go and demonstrate :rolleyes:
It's really a pitiful shame what they did to him...
They should've better expelled those fanatic demonstrants! :mad:

It was his damn right to publish these cartoons, but of course some braindead bozos had to go and demonstrate :rolleyes:
It's really a pitiful shame what they did to him...
They should've better expelled those fanatic demonstrants! :mad:

I thought so too, at first. However, someone did point out that it was a private organization, and they really have the right to can anyone they want.

Do I think that the owners/officers should have had a bit more in the way of balls and defended the guy's right to free speech/expression and not canned him? Sure.

Now, the religious right has the ammo they need to get all kinds of things banned in the US (and the rest of the world, for that matter).

Now, the religious right has the ammo they need to get all kinds of things banned in the US (and the rest of the world, for that matter).
Only if everyone else develops that kind of limited reasoning.
Or if the Christian radicals become violent protestors and start threatening to bomb shit all the time.

Only if everyone else develops that kind of limited reasoning.
Or if the Christian radicals become violent protestors and start threatening to bomb shit all the time.

Oh, so you support the double-standard. I see.

Only if everyone else develops that kind of limited reasoning.
Or if the Christian radicals become violent protestors and start threatening to bomb shit all the time.
Like abortion clinics

Like abortion clinics

Good point. They're already there. Whee....

Courtesy far outweighs the First Amendment. If you don't realise that, then you're either very young or nobody taught you that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

Take the advise of the first quote of your signature, and please remove "freedom" from your vocabulary.

Courtesy does NOT outweight the First Amendment... Never has, never will, and if you think it does, you do not believe people have the right to express their opinions, or follow their own beliefs.... In fact, you do not believe in "freedom" at all... But rather in some distortion of moral tyrany.

I thought so too, at first. However, someone did point out that it was a private organization, and they really have the right to can anyone they want.

Do I think that the owners/officers should have had a bit more in the way of balls and defended the guy's right to free speech/expression and not canned him? Sure.

Now, the religious right has the ammo they need to get all kinds of things banned in the US (and the rest of the world, for that matter).

I see you don't actually advocate taking responsibility for one's actions. This gentleman did an end around procedures because he wasn't sure if he could get it published otherwise. His bosses didn't want an editor that would end-around the rules whenever he felt like it so they suspended him until they had absolute evidence that he did so for this reasoning. He will be fired. I talked to people from the paper this weekend.

Take the advise of the first quote of your signature, and please remove "freedom" from your vocabulary.

Courtesy does NOT outweight the First Amendment... Never has, never will, and if you think it does, you do not believe people have the right to express their opinions, or follow their own beliefs.... In fact, you do not believe in "freedom" at all... But rather in some distortion of moral tyrany.

He wasn't advocating governmental censorship. He was advocating self-censorship and that has nothing to do with tyranny. He was saying simply because you CAN say something doesn't mean that you SHOULD.

I see you don't actually advocate taking responsibility for one's actions. This gentleman did an end around procedures because he wasn't sure if he could get it published otherwise. His bosses didn't want an editor that would end-around the rules whenever he felt like it so they suspended him until they had absolute evidence that he did so for this reasoning. He will be fired. I talked to people from the paper this weekend.

He broke the owner's/bosses' rules. He will be fired for this action. I understand this. And I don't have a problem with that part, Jocabia. I have a problem with the fact that a media organization backed down on free speech and wouldn't support one of their employees for doing this. Instead, they backed down like whiny little children, afraid to be punished by the local bully. Admittedly, this bully does tend to use explosives from time to time...

I do advocate taking responsibility for one's actions--that's all I've been espousing this whole thread. Maybe you missed it.

Many folks take the gamble with the, "Easier to ask forgiveness than permission". It happens in business all the time. And the asking forgiveness generally works more often than not. He took a chance--he got bit.

He wasn't advocating governmental censorship. He was advocating self-censorship and that has nothing to do with tyranny. He was saying simply because you CAN say something doesn't mean that you SHOULD.

Good point. However, without legislation and regulation, how will you ever determine what is curteous and what is not? It differs for every single person on the planet.

You feasibly cannot. So, that leaves legislating what one can or cannot say/express. And I cannot abide that.

Do I believe in trying to be curteous first, rather than worrying about what I am allowed to say? Yes. But I will still always defend a right, even if the person's being a jerk about it, and abusing it. That's how freedom works--you get the bad with the good.

I'm not disputing that. Yes, the person was an idiot. It doesn't excuse anyone for doing anything violent to him. And he is free to be stupid and do something like that. He wasn't breaking any laws.

So if I piss you off so much with my words, that's going to potentioally cause you to kill me? A word from me will cause your fist to ball up and strike me, without your CONSCIOUS mind being in the middle somewhere? I highly doubt that. There's the problem. Words do NOT cause an action. Words are perceived and interpreted by another human's brain, who then makes an assumption (because it's not possible to have complete understanding of another, even through language--philosophy 101) and then DECIDES to act upon this information/assumption. Words do NOT cause WAR. A person gets pissed off and DECIDES to do something violent or stupid.

You're not even talking about the same thing. No is excusing the actions or decisions of the person who commits a violent act. However, people who don't live in dream worlds recognize that words have a lot more power than you give them. If I yell "fire" in a theatre and then start laughing, I didn't CAUSE people to trample out of there according to you. They DECIDED. That's ridiculous and ignores the reality of the situation. The reality is that people should be discouraged from inciting violence and riot.

Oh, no--I'm quite aware that it is against the law. Doesn't mean I agree with the law.

I get it. You don't like reality. You'd prefer to absolve people of responsibility for their actions. Weren't you just pretending like you wanted to hold people responsibile for their actions? Looks like you weren't exactly being forthcoming now were you?

You can't incite a crowd to violence anyway. EACH one has to make the choice to do something violent. You can't force them.

Incite does not mean force. Look it up. You can incite a crowd to violence and it happens often enough for their to be legislature about it, in every state.

I fail to see society actually holding all the individuals in a "mob" accountable for their own actions. From what I've seen, they're just some amorphous blob of non-intelligence, so they're forgiven, and the person who talked gets nailed for a group of human's stupidity. Brilliant.

So your argument is against society, not anyone here. People here hold the group responsible as well. And I guess on the news when I see protesters getting arrested for rioting that's just the ones who talk. The cops aren't arresting the ones that are fighting or breaking windows or throwing stuff at them. Yep. Of course, in the real world...

A single person cannot riot, therefore you cannot start one. A lot of people can be blamed together--but not one.

Again, this is ignorance of the reality of the situation. A single person can incite a riot. Everyone recognizes this and because of the danger to property and person, there is a compelling government interest in preventing that from occurring.

Not unless you have some direct control over another person's nervous system that bypasses their own thought processes and physical control of their own body.

You still don't understand the difference between inciting and forcing. You really need a dictionary.

I recognize the power to CONVINCE others with words. I also recognize that every human has their own will, and cannot be forced to hit someone else or cause some other sort of damage. They make the conscious decision to move that fist at someone else's face.

And they should be held responsible for that decision. However, if I had an effect on that decision and I meant to have an effect on that decision then I should be held responsible for my actions as well.

Except you want to blame someone who just spoke, and DID NOT control someone else into being violent, panicky, or whatnot.

I want to blame the person who became violent or panicky or whatnot AND the person who incited them to do so.

No, that's what *I'm* doing. You want to blame someone for speaking. And not actually doing anything beyond that. Not breaking things, not even touching anyone.

No, you're not. You want to absolve people of responsibility for their actions. Speaking is an action. A speaker chooses to speak and should be FORCED to acknowledge and take responsibility for the effect of that action.

Jocabia, I am seeing exactly what's going on. You think that if I say, "Libertarians are stupid, we should kill them," someone hears me and starts killing Libertarians, *I'm* somehow to blame. That's bullshit. Or if I make jokes at Christians and I get hit without starting anything physical myself, that it's okay for a Christian to come up and hit me? Again, bullshit. Wake up and realize that each human is in direct control of themselves, and they only act upon words if they choose to do so. No one can make them do it--therefore, words, or expressions in art for that matter, regardless how harsh, cannot be to blame for a violent act. Only the people performing the act can be blamed.

Wake up and realize that the real world doesn't work that way just because you wish for it to. There are unstable people out there. The law recognizes this and holds people responsible for encouraging an action they reasonably expect to occur. Your way does not require people to take responsibility for their actions and allows them to be a direct cause for damage to life and property. This isn't a specious causal link. The link is clear and direct.

The person that is the subject of the thread cannot and will not be sanctioned governmentally and that's not what we're discussing. However, he should recognize the effect of his speech and the lives he puts in danger with his words. The paper canned him because he put those people at risk without following the standard protocols. He made a decision alone that belonged to many more than him and effected many more than him. He was held responsible for his actions by his employers.

Good point. However, without legislation and regulation, how will you ever determine what is curteous and what is not? It differs for every single person on the planet.

You feasibly cannot. So, that leaves legislating what one can or cannot say/express. And I cannot abide that.

Do I believe in trying to be curteous first, rather than worrying about what I am allowed to say? Yes. But I will still always defend a right, even if the person's being a jerk about it, and abusing it. That's how freedom works--you get the bad with the good.
Strawman. People are advocating personally deciding what is courteous and what is not. No one is talking about legislation. There are lots of things decided by society without legislation. In fact, when legislation is appropriate it often follows a decision by society in general to hold that value in high regard. Legislation not only isn't being called for, it's illegal.

Everyone here is defending the right. However, some are also advocating personal responsibility, personal responsibility by everyone involved.

He broke the owner's/bosses' rules. He will be fired for this action. I understand this. And I don't have a problem with that part, Jocabia. I have a problem with the fact that a media organization backed down on free speech and wouldn't support one of their employees for doing this. Instead, they backed down like whiny little children, afraid to be punished by the local bully. Admittedly, this bully does tend to use explosives from time to time...

They didn't back down on free speech (the issue is free press, by the way). If you don't have a problem with the owners firing him for breaking the rules, then leave it at that. That is all they did.

On the issue of the cartoons, the owners found the cartoons to be offensive and chose not to run them for that reason. It's not noble to be offensive simply to prove a point.

I do advocate taking responsibility for one's actions--that's all I've been espousing this whole thread. Maybe you missed it.

No, you haven't. You give the idea lip service. You want only some people to be held responsible for their actions. I want all people to held responsible for their actions including people who knowingly incite violence and damage to life and property. You wish to absolve them of responsibility.

Many folks take the gamble with the, "Easier to ask forgiveness than permission". It happens in business all the time. And the asking forgiveness generally works more often than not. He took a chance--he got bit.
And deserved to. People who take such risks deserve what they get.

You're not even talking about the same thing. No is excusing the actions or decisions of the person who commits a violent act. However, people who don't live in dream worlds recognize that words have a lot more power than you give them. If I yell "fire" in a theatre and then start laughing, I didn't CAUSE people to trample out of there according to you. They DECIDED. That's ridiculous and ignores the reality of the situation. The reality is that people should be discouraged from inciting violence and riot.



I get it. You don't like reality. You'd prefer to absolve people of responsibility for their actions. Weren't you just pretending like you wanted to hold people responsibile for their actions? Looks like you weren't exactly being forthcoming now were you?



Incite does not mean force. Look it up. You can incite a crowd to violence and it happens often enough for their to be legislature about it, in every state.



So your argument is against society, not anyone here. People here hold the group responsible as well. And I guess on the news when I see protesters getting arrested for rioting that's just the ones who talk. The cops aren't arresting the ones that are fighting or breaking windows or throwing stuff at them. Yep. Of course, in the real world...



Again, this is ignorance of the reality of the situation. A single person can incite a riot. Everyone recognizes this and because of the danger to property and person, there is a compelling government interest in preventing that from occurring.



You still don't understand the difference between inciting and forcing. You really need a dictionary.



And they should be held responsible for that decision. However, if I had an effect on that decision and I meant to have an effect on that decision then I should be held responsible for my actions as well.



I want to blame the person who became violent or panicky or whatnot AND the person who incited them to do so.



No, you're not. You want to absolve people of responsibility for their actions. Speaking is an action. A speaker chooses to speak and should be FORCED to acknowledge and take responsibility for the effect of that action.



Wake up and realize that the real world doesn't work that way just because you wish for it to. There are unstable people out there. The law recognizes this and holds people responsible for encouraging an action they reasonably expect to occur. Your way does not require people to take responsibility for their actions and allows them to be a direct cause for damage to life and property. This isn't a specious causal link. The link is clear and direct.

The person that is the subject of the thread cannot and will not be sanctioned governmentally and that's not what we're discussing. However, he should recognize the effect of his speech and the lives he puts in danger with his words. The paper canned him because he put those people at risk without following the standard protocols. He made a decision alone that belonged to many more than him and effected many more than him. He was held responsible for his actions by his employers.


Reality, reality, reality. Reality is what you make of it--there is no absolute truth--like law, as some think it is. Maybe when you're a bit older, you might come to realize that.

You still think you can make me physically react by speaking to me? You might get me to leave, but that's about it. And it would be because I chose to, not because you told/advised me to.

Main Entry: in·cite
Pronunciation: in-'sIt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: in·cit·ed; in·cit·ing
: to urge on <incite a riot> —in·cite·ment noun

To urge on. To tell people, yes, you should riot. Uh huh, that's going to cause me to go break something, yeah. Right.

It's always a choice, and someone speaking their mind (no matter how twisted) is a right. No one can be blamed for someone else's actions. That does mean that the person telling them what to do actually could force a person to do that--or the person was so weak that they just automatically obey.

Which brings me to an observation--You're from IL, right? Chicago area would be my first guess, given the desire to want the victim-complex to be allowed by blaming someone from talking.

Get it through your head: If you speak, you can't make someone do something. They will always have the choice, regardless if you make a convincing argument or not. Inciting is urging, not causing. Inciting to over-eat--yeah, go ahead, eat the cookies....so if you eat the cookies and get a stomach ache, it's my fault? Sorry, can't buy that.

No, you haven't. You give the idea lip service. You want only some people to be held responsible for their actions. I want all people to held responsible for their actions including people who knowingly incite violence and damage to life and property. You wish to absolve them of responsibility.


Because there was no responsibility on your part. You still seem to think you can get me to do something just by speaking. I'll still have the choice in the matter before anything happens, therefore, the responsibility is all mine--none of it belongs to you.

Everyone here is defending the right. However, some are also advocating personal responsibility, personal responsibility by everyone involved.

Yes, but it seems you don't know where one person's responsibility ends and another completely picks up the entirety of said responsibility.

Reality, reality, reality. Reality is what you make of it--there is no absolute truth--like law, as some think it is. Maybe when you're a bit older, you might come to realize that.

Yes, maybe when I graduate high school. You know me, still popping zits and all. When someone brings age into it, that's a sure sign they have a solid argument. Now, some would point out that ad hominems are a logical fallacy, but hey, don't let logic stop you from insulting me.

I don't believe there is absolute truth. However, there is reality. Reality may be absolute or may be perception. We may all be sitting in pods dreaming. What we're doing doesn't matter. You either accept our limited ability to analyze reality or you don't. There is no question that people have the ability to influence other people and in so doing share a part of the responsibility for the action. To pretend like that influence doesn't exist, is quite simply to ignore what we know about reality.

You still think you can make me physically react by speaking to me? You might get me to leave, but that's about it. And it would be because I chose to, not because you told/advised me to.

We're not talking about you. Despite your many flaws, you're likely not unstable. However, mobs are unstable and often contain unstable people. Inciting requires that a reasonable person would have expected their actions to result in violence or rioting. Speaking is an action no matter how much you try to pretend it's not.

Main Entry: in·cite
Pronunciation: in-'sIt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: in·cit·ed; in·cit·ing
: to urge on <incite a riot> —in·cite·ment noun

To urge on. To tell people, yes, you should riot. Uh huh, that's going to cause me to go break something, yeah. Right.

Again, we're not talking about you. However, if I urge someone to pull the trigger and they shoot someone if I should have reasonably expected they would actually do it then I should be held responsible for my actions. My being held accountable takes NONE of the responsibility away from the person who pulled the trigger. There punishment is not reduced by my punishment. It's not a zero sum game, though you try to pretend it is.

It's always a choice, and someone speaking their mind (no matter how twisted) is a right. No one can be blamed for someone else's actions. That does mean that the person telling them what to do actually could force a person to do that--or the person was so weak that they just automatically obey.

Force is not a requirement. The right to free speech, and all rights, are permitted to be abridged when there is a compelling public interest in abridgment. In the case of incitement to violence or rioting, the interest is obvious. Keep arguing your strawman. It really makes you look like you know what you're talking about.

Which brings me to an observation--You're from IL, right? Chicago area would be my first guess, given the desire to want the victim-complex to be allowed by blaming someone from talking.

Wow, an ad hominem and a strawman. Can you make an argument that doesn't include a logical fallacy? Yes, I'm going to high school in the chicagoland area, and if I work really hard I might graduate negative fourteen years ago.

Get it through your head: If you speak, you can't make someone do something. They will always have the choice, regardless if you make a convincing argument or not. Inciting is urging, not causing. Inciting to over-eat--yeah, go ahead, eat the cookies....so if you eat the cookies and get a stomach ache, it's my fault? Sorry, can't buy that.
You don't have to make someone do something. However, if you influence a crime then you should be held accountable for your level of influence. I know you want to absolve people of responsibility, but I hold personal responsibility to be one of the most important things missing in today's society.

Yes, but it seems you don't know where one person's responsibility ends and another completely picks up the entirety of said responsibility.

And you seem to think responsibility is a zero sum game. It's not.

Because there was no responsibility on your part. You still seem to think you can get me to do something just by speaking. I'll still have the choice in the matter before anything happens, therefore, the responsibility is all mine--none of it belongs to you.

Yes, there is no ability to influence the actions of others. Nope. You just keep chanting that and maybe it will make it true.

"While I am pained to see that the university did this they have a right to.

In the end they own the paper and by their grace it exists ... they wish to project a certain image and the editors published something that they did not want to portray as part of the school

Personally I would not have fired them for a first offense"


The University does not own the paper!!! The students do, it comes out of students' fees. That's why the students run the paper.

"While I am pained to see that the university did this they have a right to.

In the end they own the paper and by their grace it exists ... they wish to project a certain image and the editors published something that they did not want to portray as part of the school

Personally I would not have fired them for a first offense"


The University does not own the paper!!! The students do, it comes out of students' fees. That's why the students run the paper.

Neither owns the paper. Please read the article. The Daily Illini owns the paper.

I'm not annoyed at you specifically, but like once a page someone suggests the University owns the paper (or the students).

it's disheartening to see people saying "muslims are burning buildings" and "muslims are rioting" over these cartoons. This is a *lunitic fringe* which is burning embassies, which may or may not be the puppet of some government or other.

it's disheartening to see people saying "muslims are burning buildings" and "muslims are rioting" over these cartoons. This is a *lunitic fringe* which is burning embassies, which may or may not be the puppet of some government or other.

In this case there has been no violence whatsoever.

You don't have to make someone do something. However, if you influence a crime then you should be held accountable for your level of influence. I know you want to absolve people of responsibility, but I hold personal responsibility to be one of the most important things missing in today's society.

No, you're spreading responsibility to those that have none.

Okay, so you're not absolving those of responsibility but you're creating more responsibility than was actually present, just so someone else can share the pain.

You need to stop treating a mob as an entity--they're not. They are used as such for excuses, though. Of course a mob is stupid--it's not a being.

No, you're spreading responsibility to those that have none.

None, huh? All evidence disagrees with you.

Okay, so you're not absolving those of responsibility but you're creating more responsibility than was actually present, just so someone else can share the pain.

Not creating anything. You are absolving people who should have reasonably expected their actions to have a result of the responsibility of that result. Entrapment works on the same principle. Do you know what entrapment is?

You need to stop treating a mob as an entity--they're not. They are used as such for excuses, though. Of course a mob is stupid--it's not a being.

A mob is an entity and again, you simply show that you are not educated on this subject. The effects of being in a mob are well-known and thoroughly studied. Read up.

None, huh? All evidence disagrees with you.

Not creating anything. You are absolving people who should have reasonably expected their actions to have a result of the responsibility of that result. Entrapment works on the same principle. Do you know what entrapment is?

A mob is an entity and again, you simply show that you are not educated on this subject. The effects of being in a mob are well-known and thoroughly studied. Read up.

The excusal of individual behavior is well-known and thoroughly studied, you mean.

Hoo boy...okay, Mr. Logic: Show me the logic line in going from something spoken from one person to a nerve impulse in a completely different body to move a limb to break something. I really would like to see, logically, how a word causes someone else to do what was suggested.

I'm especially interested in how the force is created to make someone do something--which is the only way you can apply responsibility to an outside entity, otherwise it's a free will choice. No one forces a free will choice.

Please elucidate.

I really would like to see, logically, how a word causes someone else to do what was suggested.


You might want to look into the concept of Pavlovian responses:

"Conditioned stimulus

A conditioned stimulus in Pavlovian conditioning is an initially neutral stimulus that is paired with the unconditioned stimulus. For example, a tone sounded just prior to the puff of air being delivered to the cornea of the eye. Without prior training, the tone does not elicit an eye blink: however, after a number of tone-puff pairings, the tone alone comes to elicit the blinking response.

Conditioned response

A conditioned response in Pavlovian conditioning is the response that the conditioned stimulus elicits after it has been repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus. The conditioned response may be similar in form to the unconditioned response. For example, the eye blink to the tone conditioned stimulus may involve the same bodily musculature as the eye blink to the puff of air to the cornea."


http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/wasserman/Glossary/reflex.html

The excusal of individual behavior is well-known and thoroughly studied, you mean.

More strawmen? No one is excusing individual behavior. Again, this about finding everything that bears responsibility, not just stopping at "it's his fault".

Hoo boy...okay, Mr. Logic: Show me the logic line in going from something spoken from one person to a nerve impulse in a completely different body to move a limb to break something. I really would like to see, logically, how a word causes someone else to do what was suggested.

I'm especially interested in how the force is created to make someone do something--which is the only way you can apply responsibility to an outside entity, otherwise it's a free will choice. No one forces a free will choice.

Please elucidate.
More strawmen, I see. No one said forced. I said influenced. We're talking about the real world. No matter how much you put your fingers in your ears and go "la, la, la", people still will exert influence and people should still be held responsible for such influence. But, hey, don't let me stop you from simplifying things to the point of absurdity.

I noticed you didn't answer about entrapment. Don't know what it is?

I was in the military (well, actually it hasn't happened yet because your great incite figured out that I'm not actually grown up and you couldn't possibly be wrong). I ordered men to do things. Those men were responsible for their actions, but so was I. So if I order them to shoot someone who is unarmed, they are held responsible for pulling the trigger, but I'm held responsibly for giving the order. But hey, logic tells us that my synapses didn't cause their finger to squeeze so I couldn't possibly bear responsibility, could I?

Is George Bush responsible for the military being in Iraq? I mean, he didn't force them to do go, did he?

You might want to look into the concept of Pavlovian responses:




http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/wasserman/Glossary/reflex.html

Shhhhh.... don't introduce him to gray. He has so much fun viewing everything in black and white.

Shhhhh.... don't introduce him to gray. He has so much fun viewing everything in black and white.

He just happened to stumble into my garden, though.... I'm actually researching forms of human 'conditioning' for a little project I hope to get published some day...

He just happened to stumble into my garden, though.... I'm actually researching forms of human 'conditioning' for a little project I hope to get published some day...

Did you notice where he made the comment about maybe when I'm older and how I must be a Chicagoan that doesn't want anyone to take responsibility for his actions. I love when people attack me as a part of their 'argument'.

I can't imagine how anybody could be completely unaware of the causal link related to influence.

You might want to look into the concept of Pavlovian responses:




http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/Faculty/wasserman/Glossary/reflex.html


And this applies to someone 'leading' a crowd for the first time?

I was in the military (well, actually it hasn't happened yet because your great incite figured out that I'm not actually grown up and you couldn't possibly be wrong). I ordered men to do things. Those men were responsible for their actions, but so was I. So if I order them to shoot someone who is unarmed, they are held responsible for pulling the trigger, but I'm held responsibly for giving the order. But hey, logic tells us that my synapses didn't cause their finger to squeeze so I couldn't possibly bear responsibility, could I?

Is George Bush responsible for the military being in Iraq? I mean, he didn't force them to do go, did he?

Ah, but then they've already sworn an oath to do what you say. Completely different--nice try, though.

Did you notice where he made the comment about maybe when I'm older and how I must be a Chicagoan that doesn't want anyone to take responsibility for his actions. I love when people attack me as a part of their 'argument'.

I can't imagine how anybody could be completely unaware of the causal link related to influence.

Don't remember throwing the first verbal jab about my intelligence, then, eh? Ah well, maybe you should go back and figure out where you were less than cordial yourself.

I didn't start it, sir.

But since we've established that you are from the socialist state of Chicago, this whole blaming others thing makes a lot more sense now. Thanks, I think I'll stop trying to combat your "logic", since it actually isn't.

The shame of it is that the New York Times and other serious US papers have NOT published these cartoons.

They are news, whether you like it or not.
There is no "freedom against being offended". If there were, Fred Phelps would be rotting in jail, and I personally find his tactics of screaming insults at the mourners of the dead repulsive.

The fact that a major US paper has NOT published the cartoons, and that people are told to go look online if they want to see them, tells me that the press has been remiss in their duty to inform.

We can criticize Judaism, Christianity, the politics of the left, right, and center, but Islam is somehow exempted?

Why?

Ah, but then they've already sworn an oath to do what you say. Completely different--nice try, though.

They still are responsible for their actions. Let me see if I can find your definition of responsibllity.

okay, Mr. Logic: Show me the logic line in going from something spoken from one person to a nerve impulse in a completely different body to move a limb to break something. I really would like to see, logically, how a word causes someone else to do what was suggested.

I'm especially interested in how the force is created to make someone do something--which is the only way you can apply responsibility to an outside entity, otherwise it's a free will choice. No one forces a free will choice.

Emphasis added. Seems the only way to apply responsibility is if you physically FORCED someone to do something. Are you changing your tune? Certainly my orders are just words. Words can't start wars remember.

Words do NOT cause wars.

EACH one has to make the choice to do something violent. You can't force them.

Someone is being inconsistent. Apparently, it seems your definitions only apply when they help you absolve responsibility from people who are being socially irresponsible.

In the military, they also swear an oath to uphold the law in spite of my orders. If my orders are unlawful they are supposed to disobey them. In my scenario, both myself and my Marines would be held responsible.

And this applies to someone 'leading' a crowd for the first time?

First - what you asked for was, and I quote: "Show me the logic line in going from something spoken from one person to a nerve impulse in a completely different body to move a limb to break something".

Simple... a Pavlovian response is an example of exactly the kind of mechanism you are looking for.

Second: The dynamics of interaction are complex, and unique... every time. But - we are accustomed to the MECHANISM, and that is what is important.

We are accustomed to being 'taught' by inspirational figures... by 'those in authority', by 'teachers', by 'people who should know'. We are accustomed to being led, to being told to do things and doing them. When was the last time you jumped a red light?

Third: "Leading a crowd for the first time" is an obfuscation. You should look into marketing strategy:

A quick search shows exactly what I was looking for:

"The content of the information (what you say) only contributes 10% to message believability, whereas how you say it counts for 40%. How you look and act when communicating your point contributes a huge 55% to message believability"

(http://www.saecareercenter.org/document.cfm?task=viewdocument&documentid=386)

First time or no, it is unimportant... it is how you 'sell' the 'product' that is important.

In the military, they also swear an oath to uphold the law in spite of my orders. If my orders are unlawful they are supposed to disobey them. In my scenario, both myself and my Marines would be held responsible.

That's excellent news, actually. I'm glad they have an out.

Don't remember throwing the first verbal jab about my intelligence, then, eh? Ah well, maybe you should go back and figure out where you were less than cordial yourself.

I didn't start it, sir.

But since we've established that you are from the socialist state of Chicago, this whole blaming others thing makes a lot more sense now. Thanks, I think I'll stop trying to combat your "logic", since it actually isn't.

Um, I don't live in Chicago, friend. I was poking fun at your ridiculous ad hominems when I said that I was going to high school in Chicago.

Also, I didn't insult your intelligence. I told you to look up the word incite because you kept acting like it equates to force. Feel insulted all you like, but given that your misuse of the word was creating a strawman, it was germaine to the argument. Not only are your comments about my age and where I live not germaine to the argument, they are also not accurate.

That's excellent news, actually. I'm glad they have an out.

Excellent job at avoiding the point. Maybe you can keep avoiding acknowledging what entrapment is as well.

Now would you care to explain how one person is responsible for their words and another isn't?

NOTE: In your shoes, I think would try the old dropped arguments trick. You've already admitted that words do bear responsibility.

First - what you asked for was, and I quote: "Show me the logic line in going from something spoken from one person to a nerve impulse in a completely different body to move a limb to break something".

Simple... a Pavlovian response is an example of exactly the kind of mechanism you are looking for.

Second: The dynamics of interaction are complex, and unique... every time. But - we are accustomed to the MECHANISM, and that is what is important.

We are accustomed to being 'taught' by inspirational figures... by 'those in authority', by 'teachers', by 'people who should know'. We are accustomed to being led, to being told to do things and doing them. When was the last time you jumped a red light?

Third: "Leading a crowd for the first time" is an obfuscation. You should look into marketing strategy:

A quick search shows exactly what I was looking for:



(http://www.saecareercenter.org/document.cfm?task=viewdocument&documentid=386)

First time or no, it is unimportant... it is how you 'sell' the 'product' that is important.


Good points all. But unless you lock me up in a cage (and yeah, work cubicles probably qualify) you've got to go through a bit of effort to cause those behaviors to form, yes?

The point I was making was that a person talking to a group of people cannot 'make' the people do what the speaker advocates. There has to be a decision in there somewhere (man, I feel like I'm up against Cat Tribes in regard to law...).

Good points all. But unless you lock me up in a cage (and yeah, work cubicles probably qualify) you've got to go through a bit of effort to cause those behaviors to form, yes?

The point I was making was that a person talking to a group of people cannot 'make' the people do what the speaker advocates. There has to be a decision in there somewhere (man, I feel like I'm up against Cat Tribes in regard to law...).

Which is why we hold the person responsible as well. There is a decision and they are responsible for that decision. However, there are many influences to that decision and if I should reasonably know that my actions will directly influence the actions of another and those actions will cause damage to life and property, I have a responsibility to amend my behavior. In the case of inciting a riot, the litmus test is whether a reasonable person would have expected a riot to be direct and immediate result of their words.

Excellent job at avoiding the point. Maybe you can keep avoiding acknowledging what entrapment is as well.

Now would you care to explain how one person is responsible for their words and another isn't?

NOTE: In your shoes, I think would try the old dropped arguments trick. You've already admitted that words do bear responsibility.

People are responsible for everything they do--that includes speaking.

However, there is no direct link between my words and your actions. You can blame my words all day for something you did, but in the end, my words can't make you move your fist or your little pinky, for that matter.

For someone who wants me to stop avoiding something, you never could put a logical path between what comes out of my mouth and you rioting.

I'll never convince you and you'll never convince me. There's your drop. Happy?

The shame of it is that the New York Times and other serious US papers have NOT published these cartoons.

They are news, whether you like it or not.
There is no "freedom against being offended". If there were, Fred Phelps would be rotting in jail, and I personally find his tactics of screaming insults at the mourners of the dead repulsive.

The fact that a major US paper has NOT published the cartoons, and that people are told to go look online if they want to see them, tells me that the press has been remiss in their duty to inform.

We can criticize Judaism, Christianity, the politics of the left, right, and center, but Islam is somehow exempted?

Why?

I think they're right to not print the cartoons. At this point, the cartoons themselves are not news. The reaction to the articles is. I also believe that it's appropriate to risk offense when you're trying to actually create satire and such. I don't think these cartoons were ever meant to do that. I believe and have always believed that these cartoons were meant to be a big "screw you" to Muslims around the world. That, in no way, excuses the violent response (and ridiculously ill-targeted), but I'm not going to act like a paper that figured out how to give 1.5 billion people the finger is something that should be held up as the ideal.

People are responsible for everything they do--that includes speaking.

However, there is no direct link between my words and your actions. You can blame my words all day for something you did, but in the end, my words can't make you move your fist or your little pinky, for that matter.

Okay. So were you wrong when you said I was responsible for giving the unlawful order?

For someone who wants me to stop avoiding something, you never could put a logical path between what comes out of my mouth and you rioting.

Yep. No logical path provided you keep your fingers in your ears and keep yelling 'la, la, la'. There is a causal path that has been shown time and time again. That causal path is what gave people like Hitler power, caused issues like the LA riots and various other problems. The clear and direct link to a speaker and mob violence is fairly well-evidenced.

Meanwhile, everytime I show you phenomena that evidences the link, you avoid replying.

You're right. I'll never convince you the sky appears blue so long as you keep your eyes closed tightly enough.

I'll never convince you and you'll never convince me. There's your drop. Happy?

I backed you into a corner where you couldn't reconcile your arguments without absolving all military leadership of responsibility for the actions of troops including the president so you agree to disagree. Did you come here to debate or simply to make assertions until someone puts up too strong of a challenge to you?

Also, I didn't insult your intelligence. I told you to look up the word incite because you kept acting like it equates to force. Feel insulted all you like, but given that your misuse of the word was creating a strawman, it was germaine to the argument. Not only are your comments about my age and where I live not germaine to the argument, they are also not accurate.

You were using urge (the definition of incite) to imply force (making someone do something without choosing to do it on their own). To urge someone on doesn't make something happen (IE won't make someone riot). You're the one using the term improperly. That's why I posted the definition.

Having someone make an extremely moving speech about eating cookies won't make someone eat a cookie. It might get some to think about eating a cookie, and then they might make the conscious choice to eat a cookie. Sales and marketing don't make people do anything. All they do is get some folks to think about a specific product or philosophy. The person still has to make the choice to perform the act.

There IS a disconnect from the person selling and the person acting.

Good points all. But unless you lock me up in a cage (and yeah, work cubicles probably qualify) you've got to go through a bit of effort to cause those behaviors to form, yes?

The point I was making was that a person talking to a group of people cannot 'make' the people do what the speaker advocates. There has to be a decision in there somewhere (man, I feel like I'm up against Cat Tribes in regard to law...).

Actually, it is easier to control a crowd, than it is to control an individual... the phenomenon is sometimes called 'mob mentality' or 'crowd psychology'.

An excellent work on the subject, (and free, through Project Gutenberg) is Gustave Le Bon's "The Crowd", which explains how and why 'mobs' react in certain (easily predicted) ways.

"The most striking peculiarity presented by a psychological crowd is the following: Whoever be the individuals that compose it, however like or unlike be their mode of life, their occupations,
their character, or their intelligence, the fact that they have
been transformed into a crowd puts them in possession of a sort
of collective mind which makes them feel, think, and act in a
manner quite different from that in which each individual of them
would feel, think, and act were he in a state of isolation.
There are certain ideas and feelings which do not come into
being, or do not transform themselves into acts except in the
case of individuals forming a crowd. The psychological crowd is
a provisional being formed of heterogeneous elements, which for a
moment are combined, exactly as the cells which constitute a
living body form by their reunion a new being which displays
characteristics very different from those possessed by each of
the cells singly.

(http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext96/tcrwd10.txt)


Does the individual have input? Absolutely... but it too often becomes subsumed in the 'mob'... part reaction to the mob, part reaction to the mob's reactions. We are well aware of the cliche of the Officer giving the soldiers an 'inspirational speech' just before they go 'over the top'... but the cliche is based on something real, something true. The 'Officer' is appealing to something, a mechanism in our psychology that makes a group of individuals act differently to individuals separated.

Thanks for the Cat-Tribes reference, by the way... I take it as a compliment.

Okay. So were you wrong when you said I was responsible for giving the unlawful order?


Now that I know someone can legally not follow an illegal order, yup.


Yep. No logical path provided you keep your fingers in your ears and keep yelling 'la, la, la'. There is a causal path that has been shown time and time again. That causal path is what gave people like Hitler power, caused issues like the LA riots and various other problems. The clear and direct link to a speaker and mob violence is fairly well-evidenced.


And our society keeps excusing the behavior of the weak-willed. Nifty.


Meanwhile, everytime I show you phenomena that evidences the link, you avoid replying.

You're right. I'll never convince you the sky appears blue so long as you keep your eyes closed tightly enough.

I backed you into a corner where you couldn't reconcile your arguments without absolving all military leadership of responsibility for the actions of troops including the president so you agree to disagree. Did you come here to debate or simply to make assertions until someone puts up too strong of a challenge to you?

Oh yes, insulting me is proving to be too much of a challenge for me. I'm so sorry I can't keep up with your victimization theories. I must be defective. I'll step out of your mightly logical way.

:rolleyes:

Actually, it is easier to control a crowd, than it is to control an individual... the phenomenon is sometimes called 'mob mentality' or 'crowd psychology'.

An excellent work on the subject, (and free, through Project Gutenberg) is Gustave Le Bon's "The Crowd", which explains how and why 'mobs' react in certain (easily predicted) ways.



(http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext96/tcrwd10.txt)


I'll take a look, thanks!



Does the individual have input? Absolutely... but it too often becomes subsumed in the 'mob'... part reaction to the mob, part reaction to the mob's reactions. We are well aware of the cliche of the Officer giving the soldiers an 'inspirational speech' just before they go 'over the top'... but the cliche is based on something real, something true. The 'Officer' is appealing to something, a mechanism in our psychology that makes a group of individuals act differently to individuals separated.

Thanks for the Cat-Tribes reference, by the way... I take it as a compliment.

It was meant as one, actually.

It was meant as one, actually.

I figured as much, which was why the thanks. :)

You were using urge (the definition of incite) to imply force (making someone do something without choosing to do it on their own). To urge someone on doesn't make something happen (IE won't make someone riot). You're the one using the term improperly. That's why I posted the definition.

I'm not implying force. In fact, I specifically stated that it is not forcing but simply exerting influence. You're amusing. So you refuse to recognize the difference between incite/influence and force and I'M using it improperly. Please quote where I said force or implied that no choice was made? I specifically stated that the individual should be held responsible so where did I say or imply that no choice was made? Please, show me. The quote function is very useful.

Having someone make an extremely moving speech about eating cookies won't make someone eat a cookie. It might get some to think about eating a cookie, and then they might make the conscious choice to eat a cookie. Sales and marketing don't make people do anything. All they do is get some folks to think about a specific product or philosophy. The person still has to make the choice to perform the act.

There IS a disconnect from the person selling and the person acting.
You still miss it. Influence does not imply that a choice isn't made. That is the difference between urge and force. Urging someone to do something is exerting influence. If it is reasonably likely that with my influence a situation will go one way and without my influence a situation will go another way then I should be held responsible for exerting my influence if I did so knowingly. In an inciting a riot charge I must have caused something to happen that was reasonably unlikely to happen without my presence and the effects of my influence would have to be obvious to a reasonable person. You pretend like mind-control is the only kind of influence one can have.

Meanwhile, you still ignore my other arguments?

You said I'm responsible for the WORDS I used when I ordered my troops to break the law. How does that reconcile with WORDS not mattering to action?

Incite does not mean force. Look it up. You can incite a crowd to violence and it happens often enough for their to be legislature about it, in every state.

...

You still don't understand the difference between inciting and forcing. You really need a dictionary.

From before you cited the dictionary. Now, what was it you were saying?

From before you cited the dictionary. Now, what was it you were saying?

<sigh> Does it really matter at this point?

<sigh> Does it really matter at this point?

How about addressing the point? Is a the military hierachy responsble for the actions of the troops? You said yes. Are those not words or do you admit that sometimes words while they don't force an action and can have an influence on action that puts responsibility on the speaker?

How about the question of what entrapment is and why it's not allowed?

You remind me a bit of some of the other posters. You only reply to the posts that are off-topic. Reply to arguments you dropped.

How about addressing the point? Is a the military hierachy responsble for the actions of the troops? You said yes. Are those not words or do you admit that sometimes words while they don't force an action and can have an influence on action that puts responsibility on the speaker?


You'll just call this backpedalling--but I didn't know a soldier could refuse an illegal order. I was referring to situations where free will, without a promise or contract--standard citizens.


How about the question of what entrapment is and why it's not allowed?


Nah, I've changed my mind--I still won't address it.


You remind me a bit of some of the other posters. You only reply to the posts that are off-topic. Reply to arguments you dropped.

And yet he continues with the barbs....

You know what, screw it. I'm done answering your questions and addressing your points. Feel as superior as it takes to be able to sleep.

You'll just call this backpedalling--but I didn't know a soldier could refuse an illegal order. I was referring to situations where free will, without a promise or contract--standard citizens.

Even if he couldn't refuse a direct order, you're not suggesting that anyone had a direct line into his brain. Free will was still involved.

So now promise or contract extends responsibility to other people? Hmmmm... could that possibly mean... no... it can't mean... words actual do convey responsibility to non-actors? No, it couldn't mean that. You know those promises and contracts aren't composed of words. They are synaptic pulses since that's the only thing that can make someone responsible for the actions of another.

Nah, I've changed my mind--I still won't address it.

Just continue dropping arguments.

And yet he continues with the barbs....

Barbs? I pointed out that you're dropping arguments while replying to every off-topic comment. Your method of argument and your arguments themselves are something you brought to the debate so I'm addressing them. I'm not saying anything about you personally, something you should try. Last I checked, your spurious guess at my age had nothing to do with the argument and your spurious claims about my origin had nothing to do with the argument.

These are barbs -
Maybe when you're a bit older, you might come to realize that.

...

Which brings me to an observation--You're from IL, right? Chicago area would be my first guess, given the desire to want the victim-complex to be allowed by blaming someone from talking.

See, that's what barb look like. See how they have nothing to do with the conversation are simply ad hominems attempting to dismiss the argument without addressing it.

You know what, screw it. I'm done answering your questions and addressing your points. Feel as superior as it takes to be able to sleep.

I love it when people pretend like they're really taking the high road. The high road would be to address the argument and quit with the logical fallacies.

You dropped those arguments. The fact is you said the only way for someone outside of the actual person to have any responsibility is if they physically force the person through mind-control or some such. I pointed out that this is not consistent with considering the leadership in the military to be responsble for their soldiers and then you redefined how words CAN actually make someone else also responsible for actions.

Don't address the arguments if you like, but let's call them for what they are. You used ad hominems, strawmen and dropped arguments throughout the thread to avoid addressing the point that WORDS do exert influence and there is a mountain of evidence for this influence. That you accept that words breed responsibility for the actions of others in certain situations though you try to claimed elsewhere that it never does.

But, hey, don't bother addressing the points. Keep just going off-topic and replying to anything BUT the points themselves. I've only been asking you these questions for three pages.

I love it when people pretend like they're really taking the high road. The high road would be to address the argument and quit with the logical fallacies.

You dropped those arguments. The fact is you said the only way for someone outside of the actual person to have any responsibility is if they physically force the person through mind-control or some such. I pointed out that this is not consistent with considering the leadership in the military to be responsble for their soldiers and then you redefined how words CAN actually make someone else also responsible for actions.

Don't address the arguments if you like, but let's call them for what they are. You used ad hominems, strawmen and dropped arguments throughout the thread to avoid addressing the point that WORDS do exert influence and there is a mountain of evidence for this influence. That you accept that words breed responsibility for the actions of others in certain situations though you try to claimed elsewhere that it never does.

But, hey, don't bother addressing the points. Keep just going off-topic and replying to anything BUT the points themselves. I've only been asking you these questions for three pages.

Again, do whatever it takes to be able to sleep at night. That's about all you're going to get out of me, so you might as well stop wasting your effort and time.

I think they're right to not print the cartoons. At this point, the cartoons themselves are not news. The reaction to the articles is. I also believe that it's appropriate to risk offense when you're trying to actually create satire and such. I don't think these cartoons were ever meant to do that. I believe and have always believed that these cartoons were meant to be a big "screw you" to Muslims around the world. That, in no way, excuses the violent response (and ridiculously ill-targeted), but I'm not going to act like a paper that figured out how to give 1.5 billion people the finger is something that should be held up as the ideal.

Well, at least one of them was more of a "You guys know what this is gonna do, right?" cartoon. One of the cartoonists sent in a cartoon (and it was published), calling the paper a "provoceteur" or something like that - basically saying, "You guys are just trying to pull strings, aren't you?"

Well, at least one of them was more of a "You guys know what this is gonna do, right?" cartoon. One of the cartoonists sent in a cartoon (and it was published), calling the paper a "provoceteur" or something like that - basically saying, "You guys are just trying to pull strings, aren't you?"

Yeah, actually, that artist was pretty much the only artist that actually put a little effort in creating something that wasn't solely for the purpose of insulting 1.5 billion people.

I would like to point out, though, that I think a huge amount of responsibility falls on the clerics that put out those false pamphlets about what the cartoons were. I suspect that if all of those Muslims were aware of what the cartoons really said they would be upset but not nearly as upset. No one attempted to inflame this situation more than those clerics.

What upsets me is that we have newspapers here that could and should be rational and try to calm the situation and let diplomacy have a chance, but people think that being the voice of reason is too wussy. There are two sides here and somebody has to be the voice of reason and it sure isn't going to be the clerics. An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.

He wasn't advocating governmental censorship. He was advocating self-censorship and that has nothing to do with tyranny. He was saying simply because you CAN say something doesn't mean that you SHOULD.

And that is the issue... For example, I do not think that a homosexual should self limit their love for someone of the same sex because someone else would find it morally offensive, anymore than I would expect a non-muslim to not depict mohammed because a muslim would find it morally offensive, that a non hindu would stop eating beef because a hindu would find it morally offensive...

No one is free from offense, and no one possesses a right [b]not[b] to be offended... That is the larger point to everything that is going on here.

And that is the issue... For example, I do not think that a homosexual should self limit their love for someone of the same sex because someone else would find it morally offensive, anymore than I would expect a non-muslim to not depict mohammed because a muslim would find it morally offensive, that a non hindu would stop eating beef because a hindu would find it morally offensive...

No one is free from offense, and no one possesses a right [b]not[b] to be offended... That is the larger point to everything that is going on here.

So your argument is that it's appropriate to seek to offend people with no other purpose than to simply offend. Fair enough. However, that action does bear consequences and I wholly encourage people to vote with their dollar and to excercise every means available to them within the bounds of the law to express their displeasure with insensitivity for the sake of insensitivity or sensationalism.

By the same token, I wouldn't associate myself with people who stand outside Wal-Mart and call every obese person who passes a "fat, tub of lard".

Yes, people have the right to free expression, but they don't have freedom from consequences. No one is claiming a right to not be offended, but we are claiming that an expectation that people aren't going to verbally attack you simply because they can exists and that we're proud to live in a society that supports that kind of sensitivity.

So your argument is that it's appropriate to seek to offend people with no other purpose than to simply offend.

Actually, her post doesn't even come close to saying that. Do you think a homosexual person will go out and find a date just to offend someone? Do you think any portrayal of Mohammed must seek to offend? Do you think that someone eating beef is doing it soley to offend the Hindus?

Edit: Meanwhile, saying that one has a right to do something soley to offend does not mean that it is appropriate. In fact, most of those things done to offend, we consider inappropriate, even as some laugh at them (and others gasp in horror). George Carlin, for instance, has said he loves to find someone's boundaries specifcally to push over them. Have you ever seen the Aristocrats? If the purpose of that joke is not to offend, I'm not sure what it is.

Actually, her post doesn't even come close to saying that. Do you think a homosexual person will go out and find a date just to offend someone? Do you think any portrayal of Mohammed must seek to offend? Do you think that someone eating beef is doing it soley to offend the Hindus?

Edit: Meanwhile, saying that one has a right to do something soley to offend does not mean that it is appropriate. In fact, most of those things done to offend, we consider inappropriate, even as some laugh at them (and others gasp in horror). George Carlin, for instance, has said he loves to find someone's boundaries specifcally to push over them. Have you ever seen the Aristocrats? If the purpose of that joke is not to offend, I'm not sure what it is.

I think you might be missing the point he was making...

Unless I read it wrong, Jocabia was saying that the homosexual seeking a partner is serving a 'higher purpose' (love)... whereas the cartoons were created purely to offend.

If I read it right, Jocabia was saying the parallels were poor choices for that reason.

I think you might be missing the point he was making...

Unless I read it wrong, Jocabia was saying that the homosexual seeking a partner is serving a 'higher purpose' (love)... whereas the cartoons were created purely to offend.

If I read it right, Jocabia was saying the parallels were poor choices for that reason.

He read Tekania's point as "It is perfectly appropriate to seek to offend another," something she didn't even come close to saying. I know what Jocabia's point is. It seems that it is he who missed hers.

So your argument is that it's appropriate to seek to offend people with no other purpose than to simply offend.

I can't find a single thing in Tekania's post that even suggests this, much less makes the argument.

He read Tekania's point as "It is perfectly appropriate to seek to offend another," something she didn't even come close to saying. I know what Jocabia's point is. It seems that it is he who missed hers.

I can't find a single thing in Tekania's post that even suggests this, much less makes the argument.

It's context, I think... the way it responds to the earlier Jocabia post.

It's context, I think... the way it responds to the earlier Jocabia post.

Hmmm, when it comes right down to it, Tekania's post doesn't seem to have much, if anything, to do with Jocabia's. It doesn't really address the point he was making at all...

I think the problem is the difference between the way people look at things. Some people approach this issue from what someone "should" do, and others approach it from what people "have the right" to do. They end up talking around each other. Most of us agree, for instance, that no one should walk up to a woman who has just had a miscarriage and start telling dead baby jokes. However, most of us also agree that he has a right to do so, so long as it is in a public place and he is not restraining her or harrassing her. But some people keep saying, "He shouldn't do it!" and other answer with, "He can do it!" - both addressing different points.

Okay. So were you wrong when you said I was responsible for giving the unlawful order?


Given the contractual obligation, you are responsible for your orders. OTOH, people in everyday life do not have a contractual obligation towards one another regarding speech, unless that speech is direct and obvious in it's danger of inciting a riot or if that speech may directly cause panic, a la the fire in a crowded theater example.


There are also other things, but somehow I don't think you'll get charged with defamation of character for doing so to Mohammed.

Hmmm, when it comes right down to it, Tekania's post doesn't seem to have much, if anything, to do with Jocabia's. It doesn't really address the point he was making at all...

I think the problem is the difference between the way people look at things. Some people approach this issue from what someone "should" do, and others approach it from what people "have the right" to do. They end up talking around each other. Most of us agree, for instance, that no one should walk up to a woman who has just had a miscarriage and start telling dead baby jokes. However, most of us also agree that he has a right to do so, so long as it is in a public place and he is not restraining her or harrassing her. But some people keep saying, "He shouldn't do it!" and other answer with, "He can do it!" - both addressing different points.

This is true, absolutely. (And, looking back through the last few Jocabia posts, seems to be what he was saying, also).

Yes... maybe the person should have the 'right' to do something... but, maybe they should have... something else (good grace, 'breeding', empathy?)... no NOT do it...

Given the contractual obligation, you are responsible for your orders. OTOH, people in everyday life do not have a contractual obligation towards one another regarding speech, unless that speech is direct and obvious in it's danger of inciting a riot or if that speech may directly cause panic, a la the fire in a crowded theater example.


There are also other things, but somehow I don't think you'll get charged with defamation of character for doing so to Mohammed.

You actually just agreed with me. Or at least we agree. I was making exactly that point. The original person was arguing that the only way for one person to be responsible for another is to use mind-control or something. It was all fairly silly.

I think you might be missing the point he was making...

Unless I read it wrong, Jocabia was saying that the homosexual seeking a partner is serving a 'higher purpose' (love)... whereas the cartoons were created purely to offend.

If I read it right, Jocabia was saying the parallels were poor choices for that reason.

I was saying, though, that offending people for the sake of offending people may be A right, but it's not right. I didn't really address the analogous situations, because they hardly apply.

Given the post Tek was responding to, unless she was accidentally agreeing with me, she seemed to say self-censorship is wrong even if you do so because you see no reason to offend someone.

Hmmm, when it comes right down to it, Tekania's post doesn't seem to have much, if anything, to do with Jocabia's. It doesn't really address the point he was making at all...

I think the problem is the difference between the way people look at things. Some people approach this issue from what someone "should" do, and others approach it from what people "have the right" to do. They end up talking around each other. Most of us agree, for instance, that no one should walk up to a woman who has just had a miscarriage and start telling dead baby jokes. However, most of us also agree that he has a right to do so, so long as it is in a public place and he is not restraining her or harrassing her. But some people keep saying, "He shouldn't do it!" and other answer with, "He can do it!" - both addressing different points.

The problem is the post Tek responded to said both. There are many thing you CAN do that you probably shouldn't. I make both the point that it's legal and it's a protected right and that it's insenstive and I disagree with the action. In that context, I find it hard to disagree without saying that the act of offending people is somehow noble because it's excercising a right. This is something repeatedly espoused in the thread and given that it was compared to things like falling in love, I don't think I stretched that post much if at all.

EDIT: Although, I do notice that she strategically leaves out that people aren't offended by the depiction of Mohammed alone, but the fact that Mohammed is depicted with a bomb in his turban. It's like saying the reason I find the cross in a jar of piss offensive is because I don't believe people should display the cross. The fact is that these cartoons weren't an incidental offense of not following the religious ideals of another, but an intentional offense of depicting a person considered to have fathered the faith to which 1.5 billion people belong in ways that are clearly bigotted.

This is true, absolutely. (And, looking back through the last few Jocabia posts, seems to be what he was saying, also).

Yes... maybe the person should have the 'right' to do something... but, maybe they should have... something else (good grace, 'breeding', empathy?)... no NOT do it...

Yes. I said in many of my posts that I defend the right of people to say just about anything (so long as it doesn't directly endanger people or property), however, I don't support their choice to excercise that right with the purpose of simply being offensive.

I was saying, though, that offending people for the sake of offending people may be A right, but it's not right. I didn't really address the analogous situations, because they hardly apply.

Given the post Tek was responding to, unless she was accidentally agreeing with me, she seemed to say self-censorship is wrong even if you do so because you see no reason to offend someone.

Perfect... 'It may be a 'right', but it's not right'.

Perfect... 'It may be a 'right', but it's not right'.

Yes, every once in a while, I manage to hit on a succint way of saying something. It's rare so celebrate it when it happens. I still want 'goldfishing' to catch on.

Yes, every once in a while, I manage to hit on a succint way of saying something. It's rare so celebrate it when it happens. I still want 'goldfishing' to catch on.

Consider it celebrated. I had to draw attention to it... it (for me) sums up the whole thread in less than a dozen well-aimed words. :)

The problem is the post Tek responded to said both. There are many thing you CAN do that you probably shouldn't. I make both the point that it's legal and it's a protected right and that it's insenstive and I disagree with the action. In that context, I find it hard to disagree without saying that the act of offending people is somehow noble because it's excercising a right. This is something repeatedly espoused in the thread and given that it was compared to things like falling in love, I don't think I stretched that post much if at all.

It seemed (to me) that Tekania was saying that one shouldn't refrain from doing something *soley* because it might offend - ie. a homosexual person should not refrain from dating just because someone else might get all huffy about it. You are saying that one shouldn't do something with the *sole* purpose of offending another - ie. a person shouldn't make a cartoon with the sole purpose of insulting a religion. These are not necessarily contradictory, but they can be. I guess I would have to get Tek to actually clarify on that.

its nice to see that its only rightful protest. not the blowing up of danish embassies. i live in Champaign so im glad im not getting blown up today.


fun fact for the day: Hugh Hefner was a staff member for the daily Illini

its nice to see that its only rightful protest. not the blowing up of danish embassies. i live in Champaign so im glad im not getting blown up today.


fun fact for the day: Hugh Hefner was a staff member for the daily Illini

I live in Champaign too and I didn't know that (north Prospect)

What gets me is that relgious chirtians are up in arms about how stupid the muslims are for the anti-cartoon thing. But the second there is an article about gays or abortion the people are like OHHH NO GODS WORD OHHHH AHHHH.

Hypocritical bullshit.