By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The Act of Speech Deserve No Special Treatment

 

Should people be able to say Anything to their fellow humans?

Yes 18 69.23%
 
No 6 23.08%
 
See results 2 7.69%
 
Total:26
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Adinnieken said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


It is unreasonable to offend someone because of his skin colour, it is unreasonable to offend someone because of his beliefs, it is unreasonable to offend someone because of his sexuality and it is unreasonable to offend someone because of his nationality. Offending a racist may be reasonable if it is the only way to eventually stop it from offending minorities.

People don't choose what to be offended by, which is why we need to be flexible and stop as much offending as possible. A racist being offended because he cannot express his hateful views makes no sense. A religious society being offended by a minority because they don't share their beliefs makes no sense. A Jew being offended by hateful speech every day on his way to work does make sense.

It is all about being reasonable.

I'm offended by this comment.  Can someone please ban this person so they can no longer spout their offensive comments?

You just proved my point. The vgc staff can easily see that my intention was not to offend anyone, while the fairly obvious fact that you are pretending to be offended is more than obvious.

See, a short live demonstration of how the court works.

How can you assume that I'm not offended?  What you've said is offensive.  Just because you believe it's fair and reasonable, doesn't mean I agree that you're being fair and reasonable.  I belief you're going too far in your desire to regulate speech by whatever definition of offensive that you or anyone else wants to pursue.



Around the Network
Crono141 said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


The reaction following an insult is irrelevant. An insult is still an insult. You never expect positive feedback or results from insulting someone, because that's what we call a joke. Yes, jokes may or may not be misinterpreted, but the reason why the joke was made is what matters. The joke-makers may lie in an attempt to bypass the system but then again, that's what we have the court systems for: To make it as fair as possible for as many as possible.

Limiting speech is never fair or just.


It's not about limiting speech. It's about limiting actions with the intention to harm people.



And by limiting speech, you are harming the people attempting to speak, and harming society by preventing everyone from being able to hear what they are saying.



Check out my Youtube Let's Play channel here.

Adinnieken said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

You just proved my point. The vgc staff can easily see that my intention was not to offend anyone, while the fairly obvious fact that you are pretending to be offended is more than obvious.

See, a short live demonstration of how the court works.

How can you assume that I'm not offended?  What you've said is offensive.  Just because you believe it's fair and reasonable, doesn't mean I agree that you're being fair and reasonable.  I belief you're going too far in your desire to regulate speech by whatever definition of offensive that you or anyone else wants to pursue.

That how a law-system works. Innocents will be punished at times, but mostly the common sense knows what is right, especially when accompanied by highly or more than highly likely theories. If you want to get rid of all laws so that innocents never will be punished then be my guest.



As soon as you give the government the power to limit speech, it is then up to their discretion how to limit it. They can pass a law limiting ANY speech. This is precisely happening now in Russia with the Pussy Riot verdict.

If you don't like what someone is saying, do not listen to them. If they are actively and repeatedly harassing or threatening someone, then it is an issue.



Monument Games, Inc.  Like us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/MonumentGames

Nintendo Netword ID: kanageddaamen

Monument Games, Inc President and Lead Designer
Featured Game: Shiftyx (Android) https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.Shiftyx

Free ad supported version:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.ShiftyxFree

Around the Network
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Adinnieken said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

You just proved my point. The vgc staff can easily see that my intention was not to offend anyone, while the fairly obvious fact that you are pretending to be offended is more than obvious.

See, a short live demonstration of how the court works.

How can you assume that I'm not offended?  What you've said is offensive.  Just because you believe it's fair and reasonable, doesn't mean I agree that you're being fair and reasonable.  I belief you're going too far in your desire to regulate speech by whatever definition of offensive that you or anyone else wants to pursue.

That how a law-system works. Innocents will be punished at times, but mostly the common sense knows what is right, especially when accompanied by highly or more than highly likely theories. If you want to get rid of all laws so that innocents never will be punished then be my guest.


That is how a free society works.  We let the occasional guilty get off so that the innocent never will be punished for something they didn't commit.  It is never acceptible that an innocent party is penalized for something they did not do.



Check out my Youtube Let's Play channel here.

IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

It is unreasonable to offend someone because of his skin colour, it is unreasonable to offend someone because of his beliefs, it is unreasonable to offend someone because of his sexuality and it is unreasonable to offend someone because of his nationality. Offending a racist may be reasonable if it is the only way to eventually stop it from offending minorities.

People don't choose what to be offended by, which is why we need to be flexible and stop as much offending as possible. A racist being offended because he cannot express his hateful views makes no sense. A religious society being offended by a minority because they don't share their beliefs makes no sense. A Jew being offended by hateful speech every day on his way to work does make sense.

It is all about being reasonable.


No it is not.  People do not have a right not to be offended.  PARTICULARLY based on their beliefs.  beliefs are choices and you have absolutely no right to tell people they can't say what they choose because of something YOU choose.

 

For example, it used to be offensive to say there is no god.  Should I be arrested for doing so, just because religious people get offended?



Monument Games, Inc.  Like us on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/MonumentGames

Nintendo Netword ID: kanageddaamen

Monument Games, Inc President and Lead Designer
Featured Game: Shiftyx (Android) https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.Shiftyx

Free ad supported version:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.MonumentGames.ShiftyxFree

Crono141 said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
That how a law-system works. Innocents will be punished at times, but mostly the common sense knows what is right, especially when accompanied by highly or more than highly likely theories. If you want to get rid of all laws so that innocents never will be punished then be my guest.


That is how a free society works.  We let the occasional guilty get off so that the innocent never will be punished for something they didn't commit.  It is never acceptible that an innocent party is penalized for something they did not do.


Yet, fact remains: Innocent people do get punished on a regular basis. It's not a good thing, but it's better than a lawless society. In my opinion, that is.



kanageddaamen said:


No it is not.  People do not have a right not to be offended.  PARTICULARLY based on their beliefs.  beliefs are choices and you have absolutely no right to tell people they can't say what they choose because of something YOU choose.

 

For example, it used to be offensive to say there is no god.  Should I be arrested for doing so, just because religious people get offended?


Like I have said, it depends on your intentions. If you yell those words inside a church on a funeral, you can't possibly have had any good intentions unless you were forced by someone (in which case the intention would be to save yourself from harm), which is foolish to assume.



IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
kanageddaamen said:


No it is not.  People do not have a right not to be offended.  PARTICULARLY based on their beliefs.  beliefs are choices and you have absolutely no right to tell people they can't say what they choose because of something YOU choose.

 

For example, it used to be offensive to say there is no god.  Should I be arrested for doing so, just because religious people get offended?


Like I have said, it depends on your intentions. If you yell those words inside a church on a funeral, you can't possibly have had any good intentions unless you were forced by someone (in which case the intention would be to save yourself from harm), which is foolish to assume.


And no one knows your intentions but you.  I do not trust a judge or jury of any kind to determine intentions because they will get it wrong, especially with racial sensitivities involved.

Google "chink in armor ESPN" and read about that particular fiasco for an example.



Check out my Youtube Let's Play channel here.