Free Speech & Right to Privacy/Libel/etc (more fun with PZ!)

[hadespussercats]

If you value these bolded items, why resort to tit-for-tat tactics in the first place?

Read my book. Once I've written it.

Only if you read mine first. Heh.

Well, now... that means that you're going to have to write yours, first.

Closing in on 300 pages. Still got a ways to go.

[John_fi_Skye]

If you value these bolded items, why resort to tit-for-tat tactics in the first place?

Read my book. Once I've written it.

Only if you read mine first. Heh.

Well, now... that means that you're going to have to write yours, first.

Closing in on 300 pages. Still got a ways to go.

[hadespussercats]

You don't know enough to teach your dog to eat dog food out of a bowl.

Jolly good. Your personal insult gives me free reign to return it. Please pay attention to that fact (aimed at anyone with an itchy trigger finger vis-a-vis the Report Button).

Err... did you forget your insult towards me to which I was responding. I merely followed your analogy and returned it to you. You stated that you would go teach your dog quantum mechanics and that you'd have better luck there. I responded to that in kind.

Now you're pretending that I'm the one who insulted first? Silly.

Coito, you're a fucking moron. You not realising that you're a moron doesn't make you less moronic. I mean... you voted for Romney, right. I could say case closed, but no... every word you've said in this thread keeps that case wide open.

LOL -- grow up, you big baby. Nothing more pathetic than a guy like you who likes to dish it out, but you can't take it.

Your home. Your car. Your lawn... I mean... a lawn FFS.

It's an example for the purposes of discussion. If you exercise your brain cells, and struggle with it real hard, you may be able to realize that it doesn't matter what the property is. If a house,car, garage, driveway and lawn is not sufficiently important for you to use as an example of property in your "nobody owns anything" world, then pick something else.

Not once, at any point, did you ascertain the suggestion of the idea that maybe, just maybe, the imaginary world that I suggested didn't have homes, or cars, or lawns.

You need to describe your own imagined world. It's not unreasonable to think that in a world where nobody owns anything people still live in places (homes), and use transportation (cars), and have the places in which their families sleep (homes) surrounded by areas where grasses grow (lawns). If you're adding to your imagined world the idea that people will somehow either be prevented from making or just won't make places for themselves and offspring to sleep (homes) and won't use their ingenuity to make four wheeled machines to ride on (cars) and won't have grassy areas around the places where their families sleep, well, you ought to have said so. I would have picked a different item of property to use for discussion purposes.

However, just for conversation's sake, if nobody has a home in your world, then where do they live? Out in the open? Do they have enclosures protecting them from the weather?

No. The imaginary world has to be as identical to this world as possible. Have you no imagination whatsoever? Apparently not, if you think that a standard-issue, machine-cut uniformity of artificially shortened blades of grass is the cornerstone that can break an imagined world.

Well, I can imagine my own imaginary world. What we're talking about is the one that YOU have claimed you have imagined could actually exist and in which liberty can exist without individuals having any property rights or owning anything at all. If my assumption that people would still live in structures is too much of a stretch, you'll have to give a little bit more detail. You didn't have to get all snotty about it -- just say it -- "in this imagined world, people do not have homes at all." That, of course, would be something you'd need to expand on, because, well, it seems to stand to reason that people will have to live somewhere, inside some sort of enclosure to be protected from the elements, predators, other people, etc. That's generally what a home is -- a place for people to live, and safely protect and care for offspring.

You're not only stupid... you're an excrescence on the shoe-heel of stupidity. And there's few ways better than getting the shit off of a shoe than to wipe it on the lawn of someone unimaginative enough to think that it has value enough to be owned... with pride.

LOL -- I can tell a nerve has been hit with you. You're obviously realizing that you're, quite simply, wrong. You know that your world couldn't exist, and that you have absolutely not even suggested a world where liberty could exist without private property. You've revealed your idea to be superficial, at best, as well as juvenile, sophomoric, and the musings of someone whose depth of thinking doesn't even reach the level of "I say liberty can exist without property rights, well, because I can say 'there will be a world where nobody owns anything.'" That's the sum total, at best, being the most charitable to you, of what you've presented.

An imaginary world, where the sun is never too hot and the nights are never too cold... humans, without the need for homes, moving freely from pasture to pasture... like a Hippy dreamworld, with no property of any description whatsoever... and as liberal as liberal can be.

And my claim has been proven to be true - a liberal world that doesn't require ownership.

I guess that an imagined world is a real struggle for people without imagination.

That wasn't the original claim, anyway. It was LIBERTY existing without property rights.

The conversation began as imagining a world that could actually exist. Anyone can imagine anything. But, like imagining a world where the sun is never too hot and the nights are never too cold -- that "can't" actually exist. So, you can never have that kind of world. It's a great example for you to raise, though, because it is precisely as likely for that kind of sun to exist as for liberty to exist without property rights. You certainly hit on it there.

Anyone can imagine anything, Red Celt -- I could just say "of course liberty can exist without property rights, because I can imagine a world where nobody ever dies, everyone gets to do everything they want to do when they want to do it." That's not really the point, though, is it?

Boys, boys, you're both pretty.

Seriously, though, the real downside of this whole tit-for-tatting is the childish recursion of he-started-its.

[Bella Fortuna]

[John_fi_Skye]

Yes, but you're only saying that because you're GIRLS!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I've started my book six times, and lost the first chapters every time. I think God or St. Frances de Sales is trying to tell me something.

[Red Celt]

Seriously, though, the real downside of this whole tit-for-tatting is the childish recursion of he-started-its.

Ah, but no. I've dropped out of the "argument". Infinite tit-for-tatting requires stupidity in both parties.

[Coito ergo sum]

Boys, boys, you're both pretty.

Seriously, though, the real downside of this whole tit-for-tatting is the childish recursion of he-started-its.

Hades, this misses the point completely. Read my response to his insults right there. I tried to get back on point of the discussion. He calls me a moron there, justifying that on the fact that I supposedly broke the ice. However, he ignores the fact that my comment which he says "broke the ice" was actually in response to a comment of his.

"Who started it" is not a childish question. To be unconcerned with the initiator is to reward the aggressor/initiator. It is important who started it, because it is that person who first "crossed the line." Defending oneself is always more justifiable than initiating confrontation, as opposed to initiating it unprovoked, whether physical or verbal.

If moderation is done without reference to who started it, then what ends up happening is that those who seek to "bait" others with comments that "toe" the line get a free pass. If the person they are baiting responds, then "everybody's guilty." If the person they are baiting doesn't respond, then the initiator has no action taken against him, and is free to continue baiting.

Look at the series here -- Red Celt posted his comment about how he'd have better luck teaching his dog quantum mechanics than discussing the topic with me. With no context and no further exchange, had I reported that, the comment would not have been deemed worthy of a caution. It was to "mild, and indirect" as the term was used above. So, I responded in kind, suggesting to him that he did not have the ingenuity to teach that same dog how to eat from a bowl. For some reason, my comment to him was given a caution, but his comment to me was not given a caution. He was only cautioned for the blatant personal attack which followed my "mild and indirect" response to his comment.

[Red Celt]

Closing in on 300 pages. Still got a ways to go.

If you're after some feedback I'm happy to be added to the list.

[Red Celt]

My old English teacher... one of the most intelligent people I've ever known. Still, if you'd tried to show her how to program her VHS recorder to time her favourite TV programme... you'd have better luck trying to teach a dog quantum mechanics.

Which is a fun line, as there's a follow-on joke about him paying brief attention during the explanation of Schroedinger's Cat, but losing interest shortly thereafter. My English teacher wouldn't have seen that comment as a detrimental statement about her intelligence. Mainly because she wasn't stupid enough to think that that was what I was doing. A stupid person might see it that way, though...

[hadespussercats]

Boys, boys, you're both pretty.

Seriously, though, the real downside of this whole tit-for-tatting is the childish recursion of he-started-its.

Hades, this misses the point completely. Read my response to his insults right there. I tried to get back on point of the discussion. He calls me a moron there, justifying that on the fact that I supposedly broke the ice. However, he ignores the fact that my comment which he says "broke the ice" was actually in response to a comment of his.

"Who started it" is not a childish question. To be unconcerned with the initiator is to reward the aggressor/initiator. It is important who started it, because it is that person who first "crossed the line." Defending oneself is always more justifiable than initiating confrontation, as opposed to initiating it unprovoked, whether physical or verbal.

If moderation is done without reference to who started it, then what ends up happening is that those who seek to "bait" others with comments that "toe" the line get a free pass. If the person they are baiting responds, then "everybody's guilty." If the person they are baiting doesn't respond, then the initiator has no action taken against him, and is free to continue baiting.

Look at the series here -- Red Celt posted his comment about how he'd have better luck teaching his dog quantum mechanics than discussing the topic with me. With no context and no further exchange, had I reported that, the comment would not have been deemed worthy of a caution. It was to "mild, and indirect" as the term was used above. So, I responded in kind, suggesting to him that he did not have the ingenuity to teach that same dog how to eat from a bowl. For some reason, my comment to him was given a caution, but his comment to me was not given a caution. He was only cautioned for the blatant personal attack which followed my "mild and indirect" response to his comment.

Coito, I think I understand what you're saying. Here's where I'm coming from:
My issue with tit-for-tat or whatever you want to call it is that regardless of who is the initial aggressor, both parties end up exhibiting the exact same poor behavior.

I understand why, if you feel you were attacked initially, you'd think it was unfair that that didn't get recognized. But by this point, you're both acting out, at similar levels of inappropriate. You both deserve similar levels of remonstrance.

as for this:

Seriously, though, the real downside of this whole tit-for-tatting is the childish recursion of he-started-its.

Ah, but no. I've dropped out of the "argument". Infinite tit-for-tatting requires stupidity in both parties.

You better cut it out back there, or I'm gonna hit you with my ring hand.

[Red Celt]

You better cut it out back there, or I'm gonna hit you with my ring hand.

Oooo... momma!

Pants on or off?

[hadespussercats]

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, I think I understand what you're saying. Here's where I'm coming from:
My issue with tit-for-tat or whatever you want to call it is that regardless of who is the initial aggressor, both parties end up exhibiting the exact same poor behavior.

So? Either the behavior is allowed, or it isn't. Why would his "mild and indirect" insult be permitted, but mine not?

I understand why, if you feel you were attacked initially, you'd think it was unfair that that didn't get recognized. But by this point, you're both acting out, at similar levels of inappropriate. You both deserve similar levels of remonstrance.

With all due respect -- bullshit. I did nothing that compares to the post he was warned for, and the moderator said as much. He was warned for an overt "personal attack" and I was cautioned for the post wherein I stated that he couldn't teach his dog to eat food from a bowl which was characterized as not playing nice.

Check out my response to his post calling me a moron. You won't see any response in kind or "tit for tat" in that at all.

[hadespussercats]

Coito, I think I understand what you're saying. Here's where I'm coming from:
My issue with tit-for-tat or whatever you want to call it is that regardless of who is the initial aggressor, both parties end up exhibiting the exact same poor behavior.

So? Either the behavior is allowed, or it isn't. Why would his "mild and indirect" insult be permitted, but mine not?

Two mild and indirect insults should receive the same treatment. It shouldn't matter who posted each.

I understand why, if you feel you were attacked initially, you'd think it was unfair that that didn't get recognized. But by this point, you're both acting out, at similar levels of inappropriate. You both deserve similar levels of remonstrance.

With all due respect -- bullshit. I did nothing that compares to the post he was warned for, and the moderator said as much. He was warned for an overt "personal attack" and I was cautioned for the post wherein I stated that he couldn't teach his dog to eat food from a bowl which was characterized as not playing nice.

Check out my response to his post calling me a moron. You won't see any response in kind or "tit for tat" in that at all.

If the moderator supported your view of the matter, why are you complaining?