Except this doesn't include death threats, is largely devoid of personal attacks on specific people, doesn't stem from personal insecurities, and isn't designed to make someone feel bad about themselves. As far as "blame-shifting", I don't think that's occurring at all. Any "blame" to be had always has and always will lie with whomever initiated the negative interaction. If you believe otherwise, then yeah it might look like "blame-shifting" to you, but I think you could understand why that puts you in the minority.
See that is the thing, 'anti-bullying' often does include those things. Consider the following, 'bullying' is status seeking behavior that is common in all species that have any semblance of a hierarchy. 'Anti-bullying' is also status seeking behavior involves all of the same tactics as 'bullying,' in reality 'anti-bullying' is really bullying in which the 'anti'-bullies are portrayed as Robin Hood-esq figures.
What makes gold more useful than paper money besides use for semiconductors?
You can't print gold.
So you have a finite money system. What makes a finite money system better than an infinite one?
Because promises on a finite money system are more meaningful then ones based on an infinite one. Promises made on a not truly finite, but hard to come by currency have a lot more weight then ones based on an easy to come by resource. Since with the former you can't just keep making promises, with the later you can.
Lets try this hypothetical: If the people in power decided that the expression of pro-life sentiments was harmful to women because it leads to some women feeling they have less rights and aren't worth as much, and lead sto depression and suicide in some women (an argument against the pro-life position that I have actually hears), wouldn't it then be justifiable to ban pro-life ideas on the basis of hate speech too? Since its hatred toward women?
No. I don't mean kind of like that. I specifically selected a high profile political issue to demonstrate how the rehtoric being pushed by senori can be used to prohibit the expression of a legitimate political position.
I did not say a thing about MRA groups, because thats not really germane and would not support the argument I was making.
Um, so you don't think silencing MRA groups constitutes an abused of the 'hate speech' concept... MRA isn't a "legitimate political position." good to know... How do you feel about the other videos i posted from TheFIRE.
Lets try this hypothetical: If the people in power decided that the expression of pro-life sentiments was harmful to women because it leads to some women feeling they have less rights and aren't worth as much, and lead sto depression and suicide in some women (an argument against the pro-life position that I have actually hears), wouldn't it then be justifiable to ban pro-life ideas on the basis of hate speech too? Since its hatred toward women?
It's fully accurate to describe A Voice for Men as a hate site, though. Posting links to MRA sties complaining about this is like posting links to neo-nazi sites mad that they're called hate groups.
I really like you Tuss. You always confirm what i'm saying to be true. Please keep telling us how you want to control our lives.
It also gets quite tiresome trying to have to explain these 'hate speech' laws are pushed by Commies and useful idiots.
Shows that communists at least have something going for them. I'd chalk you complaining about useful idiots up to simple envy. At least they're good for something.
Keep going. Tell us more about how giving Commies control of everything will make this world a better place, please tell us more about how we should bow the totalitarians that want to tell us how to live our lives. Tell us more about how freedom is bad and government control is awesome.
You're saying that someone supporting additional protection for vulnerable groups sounds a lot like someone who wants to kill them all.
No, i'm not actually saying that. I'm saying it(erimir's statement) sounds like an ends justify the means statement, which it does. I'm producing a hyperbolic version of the statement to demonstrate how crazy ends justify the means really is.
Pretending they're reasonable=/=banning them from speaking.
Good thing I never said or implied those were the same thing, then.
Right, you half heartedly explicitly stated it. Then you went on to fallaciously rationalize how only causes you believe in deserve the protection.
This is how you sound in the below quote. "I'm not saying gay people deserve to purged from the human race, but i sympathize with Hitler's aims in doing so."
To be clear: I'm not taking a particular position on hate speech laws. I'm generally more in favor of free speech, but I'm sympathetic to the aims of hate speech laws. The boundary between merely advocating a position or expressing a dislike and inciting violence and invidious societal discrimination is a grey one. If millions of Americans took up the message of Westboro Baptist Church, you'd see a rash of anti-gay lynchings in the US in short order. Dehumanization is a well-known step on the way to genocidal violence, and there is some reason to be concerned about hate speech for that reason.
...
You know, if they were exactly the type of people who qualify as a protected class.
And before you try to say "Well some people might say the same thing about homosexuality"... I understand that some people think that it is reasonable to call me an abomination, but I am not obligated to pretend that they are reasonable simply because they are numerous.
Pretending they're reasonable=/=banning them from speaking.
And it gets awful tiresome to even have people who are supposedly accepting act like it's reasonable to treat my existence as a valid question for debate and act like they're just trying to be logical.
It also gets quite tiresome trying to have to explain these 'hate speech' laws are pushed by Commies and useful idiots. TheFire.org, Few youtube videos [1][2][3].
SO why do Americans defend the right to posses a thing which use of (With exceptions) is for the most part illegal. I cannot seem to rap my mind around it.
1) Refusal to allow the British government to confiscate our guns is the primary reason the US is a country to begin with.
2) All through history, shortly after whenever a population has been disarmed, government goes tyrannical, the threat of retaliation helps keep government in check. Freedom doesn't come from the government it comes from the populus.
Better question. Why do you support 'enlightened despotism?' Or are you just ignorant?
Lets try this hypothetical: If the people in power decided that the expression of pro-life sentiments was harmful to women because it leads to some women feeling they have less rights and aren't worth as much, and lead sto depression and suicide in some women (an argument against the pro-life position that I have actually hears), wouldn't it then be justifiable to ban pro-life ideas on the basis of hate speech too? Since its hatred toward women?
So you're arguing present circumstances undo past wrongs or are you arguing the wrong was never committed in the first place because the aggressive act never actually took place.
Sure it can, otherwise you would be forced to argue that someone who doesn't pay back a loan because they are dead is committing an act of aggression.
It's post like this help confirm my suspicion many of the people responding to me don't really read my posts. Seeing as how the post happened about an hour after this.
Originally Posted by Ed. View Post
Obviously, using "predatory aggression" is inaccurate in this context. It implies that the aggressor is choosing their course of action deliberately. Given the counter arguments that clearly show how there was no deliberate intent to default the debt at the time the debt was created, it is fairly easy to determine that while you may be correct in saying there are people who deliberately cheat the system for their own benefit, not all such actions are deliberate which does render the term "predatory aggression" inaccurate.
Which was followed by me saying this. "Thanks for making my point."
See the situation you described doesn't actually fit the definition of 'predatory aggression,' so you're actually agreeing with me. However it is possible the person who is dead committed an act of aggression, prior to their death.
Perhaps more reading what i say and less listen to straw men created by people i'm responding to.
Obviously, using "predatory aggression" is inaccurate in this context. It implies that the aggressor is choosing their course of action deliberately. Given the counter arguments that clearly show how there was no deliberate intent to default the debt at the time the debt was created, it is fairly easy to determine that while you may be correct in saying there are people who deliberately cheat the system for their own benefit, not all such actions are deliberate which does render the term "predatory aggression" inaccurate.
Thanks for making my point. See it's actually very easy to figure out if people would just try.
See what you did here, you made a claim then placed the burden of proof on me.
What the -!
I just gave you ~4 wiki links backing up my claim. Then you offhandedly deny my claim and I ask you to back up that denial in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. But--somehow--I'm the one who still has the burden?
This argument doesn't work for theist, it's not gonna work for you. You gave me a bunch of links and said 'prove me wrong,' you might as well asked me to prove your feelings wrong... this is the sign of a person who isn't really interested in my opinion, so i won't waste my time. It's like being given a bible and being told prove this wrong...
If you present a hypothetical scenario in which everyone--slave and owner alike--have their lives improved by slavery, I will be happy to call that hypothetical 'good.' Especially if some other agreement can't do even better for both.
Glad you admit you believe slavery=/=wrong. Now why did you make me go through this whole ridiculous process to get to this point? and how can you as a person browbeat someone else for not axiomatically agreeing that slavery is bad, when you don't believe that yourself?
You have to be doing some mental summersaults to go from these three definition to saying “not paying a loan back is aggressive”. It makes no sense, but...it's Commons! We don't expect you to make much sense.
3: : hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration.
No, mental summersaults needed.
Did you ever consider the circumstance when one is unable to pay a loan back? As in, one has insufficient funds to pay the loan, or one loses the ability to ever pay it back. Would this fall under your fake definition of aggression?
So you're arguing present circumstances undo past wrongs or are you arguing the wrong was never committed in the first place because the aggressive act never actually took place.
I mean--again--I can see times when the lendee could be considered a "predator," but the reverse is also true. It would especially be true in the cases of Debt bondage; the lender would be the predator there.
Dang, man it's almost like both parties can be committing predatory aggression, sometimes even at the same time.
I get that you feel differently, but I don't yet see why you do.
gee aren't you just a strawman fest of a poster today.
I think you need reconsidered if you have true knowledge or when you say things like 'a well known cognitive bias' you're really expressing a extremely strong belief. If you're claiming true knowledge well you aren't speaking about morals but rather about an IS.
If you feel my disbelief in free will is unfounded, I ask you to prove me wrong. I would very much like to know free will is real, but I can't based on my studies in the subject. My wants conflict with what is known about reality.
If you have evidence above and beyond what I know, please use it to convince me.
See what you did here, you made a claim then placed the burden of proof on me.
If you can show me examples were human enslavement wasn't a determent to human society (like the slaves' society), I will amend my statements accordingly. As in, if you can find me a slavery situation were the slaves and the owners both only benefited from the arrangement, I will be happy to call that mutually beneficial arrangement "good."
Interesting how you think i should only considered the past, what about the future? I noticed how you just admitted what i said in the first place. In your view Slavery=/= wrong, past slavery=wrong, future slavery so long as it 'mutually beneficial' is perfectly fine. Slavery is wrong because it's not efficient, good one man.
Are you really claiming that a lack of urinals in unisex bathrooms is sexism against men?
No, actually i agree urinals are inherently sexist and shouldn't exist, prize boxes are also inherently sexist and shouldn't exist, you would deny us equality?
Also your link explicitly claims it's for hygiene reasons and not for equality reasons. Are you unable to read?
So the act of taking a loan is aggressive? Because that is the corollary to your "I did the action of punching someone in a face then became passive by sitting there."
Seriously that analogy makes no sense. what is the initial action that is aggressive in a refusal to act?
Taking a loan without the intent to pay it back is aggression. If you take the loan with intent to pay it back then later chose not to pay it back, whenever you make the choice to not pay the loan back it becomes aggressive. At some point before you 'sit passively' doing nothing, you have committed and act of aggression. If you can't figure it out look up aggression in the dictionary...
No, i'm saying refusal to pay someone back is predatory aggression. It's exploitation which is by definition predatory and it's hostile which is aggression.
"Paying someone back" is an action. Not paying someone back is to refrain from acting. Its the negation of an action.
I can very passively sit there and tell you "nope, I refuse to pay you back."
No, when you're 'refusing to pay someone back passively' the aggressive and immoral action has already been committed. Again it's like punching someone in the face, then sitting passively and saying i'm not being aggressive, your current state isn't aggressive, your immoral act, the punching someone in the face has still taken place. Refusing to pay someone back means you exploited(PA) someone in the past, same as punching someone in the face(PA) was.
Which by definition of the words found in dictionaries is predatory and aggressive. An original act of aggression has already taken place. Is there no predatory aggression in punching someone in the face and then folding your arms passively?
Again, refusing to do something is passive, not aggressive.
You are going to have to show me the dictionary in which foiling your arms and saying "nope, I'm not going to do that" is an 'aggressive' action. As for the "predatory" part, I guess it would have to depend on the nature of the loan. On the surface I would say some of the interest rates credit card companies charge would be considered "predatory."
So your argument is past aggression isn't aggression. Aggression=/=aggression... C'mom man.
So, if that's incorrect, you're going to have to explain why, because I still don't get it.
Somehow i don't believe you.
Despite my views on 'choice,' I still feel that there exists moral "should"s and "shouldn't"s. I feel that those moral "oughts" can be evaluated in the context of moral goals. But--you ask--where do these moral goals come from?
You didn't answer my question. Why call this X morality. When morality is a clearly defined concept which your now defined X is not. I think you need reconsidered if you have true knowledge or when you say things like 'a well known cognitive bias' you're really expressing a extremely strong belief. If you're claiming true knowledge well you aren't speaking about morals but rather about an IS.
Either way i'm done with the part of the discussion, feel free to have the last word.
Now, can i get your definition of slavery or are you still undecided? Or are you willing to admit based on this quote[1] "By not worrying about who's "fault" evil is. If somethings doing something harmful, it should be stopped regardless if it's "really to blame" or not. " That you're not against people being slaves "2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence" so long as the slaves are completely unwitting? Your objection isn't really to slavery, but the slaves knowing they're slaves.
See that is the thing, 'anti-bullying' often does include those things. Consider the following, 'bullying' is status seeking behavior that is common in all species that have any semblance of a hierarchy. 'Anti-bullying' is also status seeking behavior involves all of the same tactics as 'bullying,' in reality 'anti-bullying' is really bullying in which the 'anti'-bullies are portrayed as Robin Hood-esq figures.
"Anybody that tells you, they're just words, they're an idiot."
Dude, is obviously such a outstanding anti-bully that he will bully anyone who doesn't agree with his opinion.
"Because of things like Facebook, we don't really have privacy"
You know because having a public profile on social media takes away privacy of places like your room somehow.
Like all other 'anti-bully' videos i love how giant of bullies the 'anti-bullies' are. How much hypo agency and blame-shifting is pushed.
I imagine 'mining asteroids' would be significantly harder to do then to grow tree's ect. To print money.
Because promises on a finite money system are more meaningful then ones based on an infinite one. Promises made on a not truly finite, but hard to come by currency have a lot more weight then ones based on an easy to come by resource. Since with the former you can't just keep making promises, with the later you can.
Um, so you don't think silencing MRA groups constitutes an abused of the 'hate speech' concept... MRA isn't a "legitimate political position." good to know... How do you feel about the other videos i posted from TheFIRE.
I really like you Tuss. You always confirm what i'm saying to be true. Please keep telling us how you want to control our lives.
No, i'm not actually saying that. I'm saying it(erimir's statement) sounds like an ends justify the means statement, which it does. I'm producing a hyperbolic version of the statement to demonstrate how crazy ends justify the means really is.
Right, you half heartedly explicitly stated it. Then you went on to fallaciously rationalize how only causes you believe in deserve the protection.
This is how you sound in the below quote. "I'm not saying gay people deserve to purged from the human race, but i sympathize with Hitler's aims in doing so."
Pretending they're reasonable=/=banning them from speaking.
It also gets quite tiresome trying to have to explain these 'hate speech' laws are pushed by Commies and useful idiots. TheFire.org, Few youtube videos [1][2] [3].
Curious which one are you?
Flame infraction. - Blinking Spirit
1) Refusal to allow the British government to confiscate our guns is the primary reason the US is a country to begin with.
2) All through history, shortly after whenever a population has been disarmed, government goes tyrannical, the threat of retaliation helps keep government in check. Freedom doesn't come from the government it comes from the populus.
Better question. Why do you support 'enlightened despotism?' Or are you just ignorant?
Infraction for flaming --Senori
You mean kinda like this? [1] [2] [3][4].
No, this kinda stuff would never happen.
It's post like this help confirm my suspicion many of the people responding to me don't really read my posts. Seeing as how the post happened about an hour after this.
Which was followed by me saying this. "Thanks for making my point."
See the situation you described doesn't actually fit the definition of 'predatory aggression,' so you're actually agreeing with me. However it is possible the person who is dead committed an act of aggression, prior to their death.
Perhaps more reading what i say and less listen to straw men created by people i'm responding to.
Thanks for making my point. See it's actually very easy to figure out if people would just try.
Gee man can't stop with the straw mans today, I didn't say BOTH people are wrong. I said it's possible for both people to be wrong.
This argument doesn't work for theist, it's not gonna work for you. You gave me a bunch of links and said 'prove me wrong,' you might as well asked me to prove your feelings wrong... this is the sign of a person who isn't really interested in my opinion, so i won't waste my time. It's like being given a bible and being told prove this wrong...
Glad you admit you believe slavery=/=wrong. Now why did you make me go through this whole ridiculous process to get to this point? and how can you as a person browbeat someone else for not axiomatically agreeing that slavery is bad, when you don't believe that yourself?
Or i'll just post merrian-webster
3: : hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration.
No, mental summersaults needed.
So you're arguing present circumstances undo past wrongs or are you arguing the wrong was never committed in the first place because the aggressive act never actually took place.
Dang, man it's almost like both parties can be committing predatory aggression, sometimes even at the same time.
gee aren't you just a strawman fest of a poster today.
See what you did here, you made a claim then placed the burden of proof on me.
Interesting how you think i should only considered the past, what about the future? I noticed how you just admitted what i said in the first place. In your view Slavery=/= wrong, past slavery=wrong, future slavery so long as it 'mutually beneficial' is perfectly fine. Slavery is wrong because it's not efficient, good one man.
No, actually i agree urinals are inherently sexist and shouldn't exist, prize boxes are also inherently sexist and shouldn't exist, you would deny us equality?
Are you denying feminism is about equality?
Taking a loan without the intent to pay it back is aggression. If you take the loan with intent to pay it back then later chose not to pay it back, whenever you make the choice to not pay the loan back it becomes aggressive. At some point before you 'sit passively' doing nothing, you have committed and act of aggression. If you can't figure it out look up aggression in the dictionary...
No, when you're 'refusing to pay someone back passively' the aggressive and immoral action has already been committed. Again it's like punching someone in the face, then sitting passively and saying i'm not being aggressive, your current state isn't aggressive, your immoral act, the punching someone in the face has still taken place. Refusing to pay someone back means you exploited(PA) someone in the past, same as punching someone in the face(PA) was.
So your argument is past aggression isn't aggression. Aggression=/=aggression... C'mom man.
Somehow i don't believe you.
You didn't answer my question. Why call this X morality. When morality is a clearly defined concept which your now defined X is not. I think you need reconsidered if you have true knowledge or when you say things like 'a well known cognitive bias' you're really expressing a extremely strong belief. If you're claiming true knowledge well you aren't speaking about morals but rather about an IS.
Either way i'm done with the part of the discussion, feel free to have the last word.
Now, can i get your definition of slavery or are you still undecided? Or are you willing to admit based on this quote[1] "By not worrying about who's "fault" evil is. If somethings doing something harmful, it should be stopped regardless if it's "really to blame" or not. " That you're not against people being slaves "2 : one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence" so long as the slaves are completely unwitting? Your objection isn't really to slavery, but the slaves knowing they're slaves.