Law, 'free speech' and cold hard reality.

Author: AdaptableRatman
DART
Law

Posts

Hot
Total: 113
#61
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 698
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If there was a pot of gold, then it must be risked for freedom of speech.
People are willing to sacrifice freedom of speech for free. They dont even have to be bribed here.
#62
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,519
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
Since you dropped the following argument of this thread. So let's weigh the following impacts.:
Your right to freedom of speech on a private platform versus everyone else's right to safety.
Dropped? I never addressed it. I don't even see it.

Safety? Are you mad?


Are you seriously announcing that there is no point in debating recreationally if you're not allowed to argue for something taboo, illegal, or straight-up degeneracy? 
Yes

If you there was no possibility of error in a taboo, then humanity would be omniscient and there would be no need for debate.

History tells a different lesson.

The foundation of the USA was degeneracy to the pre-cromwell nobility of Europe. When you convince yourself that you're so right you aren't even going to let people argue against you, then you're looking for an echo chamber.

You may think you can engineer an appropriate echo chamber, but recent history has again proven that you would fail.


Anyone who thinks like that shouldn't call themselves a debater. 
I am more a debater than anyone I have met on this site or debate.org.

I care about the truth, it's not another forum game to me.


but they do have a moral obligation to protect everyone's safety.
From the hit squads that will take out everyone who has ever visited a site where somebody was allowed to make an argument about a taboo subject?

Seems legit...

Whatever drugs you're on, they're making you paranoid schizo.


Freedom of speech on a private platform should be a privilege to be earned, but since it's practically uncensored here, people like you have been taking it for granted.
Freedom of speech is an objective right. Posting on a privately run site is a privilege, but this is a trade. They use your content to make money and you provide content.

If that isn't the case, if it's out of the desire to provide a public service, then what serves the public? A debate site serves the public by providing an internet version of a public forum for debating.

You can't do that and ignore free speech. I mean you can try, but by definition you will fail, thus no public service.
#63
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,519
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
If there was a pot of gold, then it must be risked for freedom of speech.
People are willing to sacrifice freedom of speech for free. They dont even have to be bribed here.
Then it's not a sacrifice, it's just a principle they don't hold and don't understand. A buzz word that holds social power but no power over their thoughts and desires.



"I like free speech but it costs too much so there have to be a few exceptions" = "I like pacifism, except sometimes I have to be violent."
Topic's author
#64
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If that isn't the case, if it's out of the desire to provide a public service, then what serves the public? A debate site serves the public by providing an internet version of a public forum for debating.

You can't do that and ignore free speech. I mean you can try, but by definition you will fail, thus no public service.
I wonder what would happen if you declared how much you love your dogs in public forums.

How dare internet forums censor, you totally can do that irl. Woof woof.

Topic's author
#65
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
"I like pacifism, except sometimes I have to be violent."
That is literally the best approach to have to violence and is what any sane nation would base its self defense principle upon.
#66
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,519
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@AdaptableRatman
I wonder what would happen if you declared how much you love your dogs in public forums.
Anonymous debating was a huge step forward for humanity. It made the ideal real. Discourse without fear of illegal reprisal. Before the 1st amendment appeared in the world it would be legally grey or legally allowed reprisal.


"I like pacifism, except sometimes I have to be violent."
That is literally the best approach to have to violence and is what any sane nation would base its self defense principle upon.
Pacifism is defined by adherence to a rule. Non-violence.

Free speech is defined by adherence to a rule.

Nations with armies are not pacifists. Someone who would censor arguments is not a believer in free speech.


You can come up with whatever echo-chamber rules you want, there are doubtless infinite possibilities; but none of them are free speech. The only reason this is even being discussed is because you're not brave enough to come out and admit you don't give a shit for a fundamental innovation of the American experiment which was adopted by all of western civilization.

Get on out of that closet, plenty of other people are doing it. They've got like 300k "non-crime hate incidents" in the UK. Everything has a cause, and when we say western values are being eroded, and you zoom in to that massive phenomenon, we find people like you. Swimming around like a bacteria, equivocating and subverting definitions.
Topic's author
#67
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Everything has a cause, and when we say western values are being eroded, and you zoom in to that massive phenomenon, we find people like you. Swimming around like a bacteria, equivocating and subverting definitions.
Western values were Catholic values. Catholics censored a lot.

I have been a bad sinner at times, I am genuinely against rap diss battles on a moral level now. The entire thing is depraved.

I think we disagree on what Western values actually were before the modern atheism, Paganism and Islam have begun to degenerate it and Protestantism seems incapable of resisting and standing firm.
#68
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,519
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Everything has a cause, and when we say western values are being eroded, and you zoom in to that massive phenomenon, we find people like you. Swimming around like a bacteria, equivocating and subverting definitions.
Western values were catholic values. Catholics censored a lot.
How did that work out?


Some people learn from history. They learned why speech must be free.

Others imagine that their emotions and concerns are unprecedented and justify ignoring lessons paid for in blood. Those people repeat history, or rhyme.


I have been a bad sinner at times, I am genuinely against rap diss battles on a moral level now.
You're nuts. It is an affront to the solemnity of the concept of morality to say such a thing.


I think we disagree on what Western values actually were before the modern atheism
Luckily there is this thing called writing.

Western civilization (and all civilizations and cultures) are an evolving gestalt. It's a 2600 year long story covering people who lived radically differently from each other is many many ways.

But there is a theme and an order to it which allows us to say such a thing exists and has meaning.


The value of free speech was an undercurrent that crested twice, first in Athens, then in the United States of America (at its birth). In both cases it flowed out from the origin as part of a cultural revolution that was so powerful that the traditions which had calcified were swept away and everyone who was exposed to that set of ideas was conquered by them without a drop of blood being spilled.

From the USA to France, to Europe, and in the age of European colonialism throughout the world.

For two centuries every people with few exceptions looked to the model of constitutional democracy with enshrined rights to liberty and equality under the law with either awe or fear.

Everywhere in the world they built parliamentary buildings, mimicking the ancient Greek style than anything else, and filled them with representatives and talked much of the rights of the people.

I say all this to explain the enormous weight of the ideas that you're eroding, ideas with still ring with power or else you would not feel the need to give hollow excuses.


On the subject of ideas that conquered, Jesus had some; and western civilization since then (for the ideas nearly instantly conquered Athens and everyone who remembered the dream of Athens) has been a hybrid.

You don't get to unmix the pot and pretend you can ignore Athens and see only Jerusalem.

Thea ideas can be dealt with separately, but western civilization as a phenomenon will never be objectively understood without the full picture.
Topic's author
#69
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Western values were Christian. Christianity is the fundamental root of all Westernisation.

That was Catholicism 80ish percent consistently in history.

The problem is that you think letting you advocate for bestiality is a Western obligation. It is not. Never was.
#70
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,519
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@AdaptableRatman
Western values were Christian.
Not all of them.


Christianity is the fundamental root of all Westernisation.
It is not.


The problem is that you think letting you advocate for bestiality is a Western obligation.
It's an obligation to reality. Those who love truth cannot shun an argument.

Western civilization didn't speak that into existence, it learned through many hard eras and crises the objective validity of it.
#71
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,379
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
In 'Satire' the website is having a user right now with profile poc of Trump and a swastika.
You mean Sidewalker's profile? I mean, no one ever complained about that.
That's because no one was ever as anal retentive as Ratman.

But....heeeeee's back.

He fell out of the asshole tree and hit every branch on the way down.

And now he's going to declare that he's in charge, AGAIN.

It's just adorable, he's desperate for attention, angry, and has nothing of value to share.


#72
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 698
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Then it's not a sacrifice, it's just a principle they don't hold and don't understand
They do value their own speech. If they were the ones being censored, it would be a very different story. But when someone they really disagree with is being censored, then they dont care. As proved even here, they are ready to even believe any blatant lies if it means censoring someone they hate. If all sites on internet followed such logic, there would be no free speech on internet. Its actually a great shame that many people in the past willingly died while fighting for free speech, and many people today are willingly doing everything to destroy free speech.
#73
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 698
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
-->
@Sidewalker
And now he's going to declare that he's in charge, AGAIN
He is not even in charge. He is just getting some attention this way. He sticks to the book "48 laws of power" which told him that he needs to do everything he can to get attention so that he can gain more power somehow. He says he has changed, but thats the exact "smoke and mirrors" chapter in the book he follows.
#74
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,379
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
And now he's going to declare that he's in charge, AGAIN
He is not even in charge. He is just getting some attention this way. He sticks to the book "48 laws of power" which told him that he needs to do everything he can to get attention so that he can gain more power somehow. He says he has changed, but thats the exact "smoke and mirrors" chapter in the book he follows.
It's a vicious cycle, desperate for attention but with nothing of substance to say, so decides he is in charge of what other people say, and as always, people ignore him, and that leaves him desperate for attention but with nothing of substance to say...

It just becomes a constant high-pitched whine.

Waah, waah, waah.
Topic's author
#75
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
Waaah waah *search warrant*
Topic's author
#76
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
I am not angry.
Topic's author
#77
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@Sidewalker
That's because no one was ever as anal retentive as Ratman.

But....heeeeee's back.

He fell out of the asshole tree and hit every branch on the way down.

And now he's going to declare that he's in charge, AGAIN.

It's just adorable, he's desperate for attention, angry, and has nothing of value to share.
This sums the old me up quite well actually. I respect the poetic language.

The 'nothing of value' part I disagree.
Topic's author
#78
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
He is not even in charge. He is just getting some attention this way. He sticks to the book "48 laws of power" which told him that he needs to do everything he can to get attention so that he can gain more power somehow. He says he has changed, but thats the exact "smoke and mirrors" chapter in the book he follows.
I have read the book yes. It says the opposite overall. It says be very very careful what you get attention for.

I do not live by it though. Not too interested in too much 'power' it does help me understand how non autstic people navigate social hierarchy or respond to those that do.

The funniest and kind of true one is he says to intentionally not turn up to certain events or intentionally turn up late.

It sound silly but does seem to garner respect and social hierarchy perception. I dont care though, I just find it funny.
Topic's author
#79
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
They do value their own speech. If they were the ones being censored, it would be a very different story. But when someone they really disagree with is being censored, then they dont care.
In this threads specific case its just literal law. Site can get blacklisted and stuff and thats best case scenario if thats the only thing that gets done.
#80
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 698
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
I have read the book yes. It says the opposite overall
Sure it does, buddy.
Topic's author
#81
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
If law 6 means what you think it means Laws 19, 38 and 5 are impossible.

#82
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 698
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
In this threads specific case its just literal law. Site can get blacklisted and stuff and thats best case scenario if thats the only thing that gets done
Blacklisted for what exactly? If someone posts links to child porn or zoo porn, and owner does nothing to remove such thing, then it would be blacklisted, sure. As for debating about if bestiality is okay, people on YouTube debate that in comments often. There are debates on Modern day debate openly debating these very topics. If you were right in what you were saying here, YouTube would be shut down long time ago.
#83
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 698
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
If law 6 means what you think it means Laws 19, 38 and 5 are impossible
Again, you dont even read my words here. You dont understand them. You have that "selective reading" issue where instead of "trying to get attention which gets you power", you just read "trying to get attention".
Topic's author
#84
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Projection
#85
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 698
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
Projection
Sure buddy. But I am not the one who praised the book as great.
Topic's author
#86
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
These days 13 year olds can get condoms and pills freely across most of Europe even if the ages of consent are higher. I cry at what has happened to us. It disgusts me.

Sex outside marriage needs to be seen as immoral again. It is supposed to be for 2 dedicated adults.
#87
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 698
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
These days 13 year olds can get condoms and pills freely across most of Europe even if the ages of consent are higher
Are you making an argument against contraception?

Sex outside marriage needs to be seen as immoral again
Alright then. I am not sure what topic are you even arguing. Sure, sex inside marriage is safer.
Topic's author
#88
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Explain something.

Why is contraception without age limit or 13+ across Europe but the age of consent meant that should be illegal?

Tell to me the logic of the depraved liberals.
#89
TheGreatSunGod
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 698
3
4
5
TheGreatSunGod's avatar
TheGreatSunGod
3
4
5
Why is contraception without age limit or 13+ across Europe but the age of consent meant that should be illegal?
Look, they all agree there that 13 year olds shouldnt have sex. However, free access to contraception reduces number of pregnant 13 year olds. What is the alternative here?
Topic's author
#90
AdaptableRatman
AdaptableRatman's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 147
0
3
5
AdaptableRatman's avatar
AdaptableRatman
0
3
5
-->
@TheGreatSunGod
Ban. Criminal record on both or on the parents that neglected them. Open door household always when friends are around (obv not if someone else is studying or whatever but ban on any fraternising).

Ban on pda beyond basic peck and handholding, hugging etc.

Far stricter enforcement on the "15+" "18+" labels on all media.

You get the idea.