Even more problematic stuff
Re: Even more problematic stuff
So who should decide what you are able to tolerate, Hermit?
Or should the government instead provide fainting couches?
Or should the government instead provide fainting couches?
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists
-various artists
The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.
Update: I've been offered one!
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
- Forty Two
- Posts: 14978
- Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2015 2:01 pm
- About me: I am the grammar snob about whom your mother warned you.
- Location: The Of Color Side of the Moon
- Contact:
Re: Even more problematic stuff
They won't be destroyed, because the the law hasn't been cut down - and so you too get the benefit of the rule that the Devil may not use force to suppress you. He can only do to you that which you can do to him -- talk, speak, protest, boycott, sing songs, carry signs.
Popper's theory falls of its own weight because it is missing a key piece of foundation: He presumes, without showing or demonstrating, that the "we" t that are the righteous ones, using force against the bad intolerants, are the "good guys." Think about it. Popper's logic only works if you're assuming that those who are being "intolerant to the intolerant through the use of force" are the good-guy progressives against the bad-guy Nazis.
Why presume that? If antifa comes to town, are they the good guys fighting the bad guys, or are they the bad guys fighting the good guys?
Ought "we" have the right to use force to suppress communist ideologues due to their danger? If your answer is no, why is that?
Popper's theory falls of its own weight because it is missing a key piece of foundation: He presumes, without showing or demonstrating, that the "we" t that are the righteous ones, using force against the bad intolerants, are the "good guys." Think about it. Popper's logic only works if you're assuming that those who are being "intolerant to the intolerant through the use of force" are the good-guy progressives against the bad-guy Nazis.
Why presume that? If antifa comes to town, are they the good guys fighting the bad guys, or are they the bad guys fighting the good guys?
Ought "we" have the right to use force to suppress communist ideologues due to their danger? If your answer is no, why is that?
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
- Brian Peacock
- Tipping cows since 1946
- Posts: 37953
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
- About me: Ablate me:
- Location: Location: Location:
- Contact:
Re: Even more problematic stuff
I guess that depends on one's ideology; on whether one thinks fascists are good guys or bad guys.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
Re: Even more problematic stuff
Who, Brian Peacock, would you choose to protect you from the most dangerous ideas?Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:29 pmI guess that depends on one's ideology; on whether one thinks fascists are good guys or bad guys.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists
-various artists
The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.
Update: I've been offered one!
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
- Brian Peacock
- Tipping cows since 1946
- Posts: 37953
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
- About me: Ablate me:
- Location: Location: Location:
- Contact:
Re: Even more problematic stuff
A dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary should be enough to protect everyone from those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas.
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
Re: Even more problematic stuff
Dodging the question is smart.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:40 pmA dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary should be enough to protect everyone from those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas.
But I asked about YOU. If you indeed need a dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary, who will staff it?
Who is fit to protect YOU from ideas, Brian Peacock? Why not write the 'dispassionate statute' right now, so we here at ratz know what ideas to protect you from...?
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists
-various artists
The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.
Update: I've been offered one!
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 40340
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Even more problematic stuff
except of course that an independent judiciary does not warrant unbigoted justices...Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:40 pmA dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary should be enough to protect everyone from those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
Re: Even more problematic stuff
Most folks who want some censorship want it for other people, who they think are too stupid to be allowed dangerous ideas.
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists
-various artists
The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.
Update: I've been offered one!
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
- Brian Peacock
- Tipping cows since 1946
- Posts: 37953
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
- About me: Ablate me:
- Location: Location: Location:
- Contact:
Re: Even more problematic stuff
I'm not dodging the question, you just didn't like/understand the answer, nor do I accept the premise that I need protecting from ideas. What I need protection against is the action of others (against "those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas"), and for that I can only rely upon that which we all rely: democratically made and maintained laws that serve the common good. No doubt you can now find some fault with that and thus we can wander further from the point - as you wish.Cunt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:05 pmDodging the question is smart.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:40 pmA dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary should be enough to protect everyone from those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas.
But I asked about YOU. If you indeed need a dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary, who will staff it?
Who is fit to protect YOU from ideas, Brian Peacock? Why not write the 'dispassionate statute' right now, so we here at ratz know what ideas to protect you from...?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
- Hermit
- Posts: 25806
- Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
- About me: Cantankerous grump
- Location: Ignore lithpt
- Contact:
Re: Even more problematic stuff
Indeed, we may be perpetrating a huge injustice on fascists and white supremacists, for instance. I never could demonstrate why liberating us from The Eternal Jew, or placing the various races in their properly ordered hierarchy are not honourable, righteous goals. They could be the righteous ones, for all I know, which makes me plainly not righteous.
Thanks for enlightening me about the error in my thinking.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
Re: Even more problematic stuff
Probably. I'll try again.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:13 amI'm not dodging the question, you just didn't like/understand the answer,Cunt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:05 pmDodging the question is smart.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:40 pmA dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary should be enough to protect everyone from those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas.
But I asked about YOU. If you indeed need a dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary, who will staff it?
Who is fit to protect YOU from ideas, Brian Peacock? Why not write the 'dispassionate statute' right now, so we here at ratz know what ideas to protect you from...?
If you don't need such protection, why wish for it?nor do I accept the premise that I need protecting from ideas.
Of course you have protection against the actions of others (like assault laws etc.) so I doubt you mean that.What I need protection against is the action of others (against "those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas"),
I don't understand. Do you mean that someone allowing a dangerous idea would be harming you?
What is a 'dangerous idea' that you need protection from? Wait - you said you don't need protection from ideas...
Maybe you could clarify this for me.
I am trying to understand if you need protection from ideas, or if that protection is only needed for other people.and for that I can only rely upon that which we all rely: democratically made and maintained laws that serve the common good. No doubt you can now find some fault with that and thus we can wander further from the point - as you wish.
If you do need that protection, why not tell us what ideas you need to be protected from?
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists
-various artists
The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.
Update: I've been offered one!
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
- Brian Peacock
- Tipping cows since 1946
- Posts: 37953
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
- About me: Ablate me:
- Location: Location: Location:
- Contact:
Re: Even more problematic stuff
I'm not - you're projecting something onto this reply to Forty Two which isn't there.Cunt wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:23 amProbably. I'll try again.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:13 amI'm not dodging the question, you just didn't like/understand the answer,Cunt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 11:05 pmDodging the question is smart.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Mon Jan 07, 2019 10:40 pmA dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary should be enough to protect everyone from those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas.
But I asked about YOU. If you indeed need a dispassionate statute and an independent judiciary, who will staff it?
Who is fit to protect YOU from ideas, Brian Peacock? Why not write the 'dispassionate statute' right now, so we here at ratz know what ideas to protect you from...?If you don't need such protection, why wish for it?nor do I accept the premise that I need protecting from ideas.
How charitable of you.
Who are we talking about who 'allows a dangerous idea' and how would they be harming me? Please be specific.
Now you're catching on.
You're trying to put words in my mouth, and failing. What I need protection against are those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas.Cunt wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:23 amMaybe you could clarify this for me.I am trying to understand if you need protection from ideas, or if that protection is only needed for other people.and for that I can only rely upon that which we all rely: democratically made and maintained laws that serve the common good. No doubt you can now find some fault with that and thus we can wander further from the point - as you wish.
Now you're just playing dumb. Why not use your imagination(?), but let's cite the idea that one's personal beliefs authorise their own justification. But as I doubt you have the patience to consider what that means and why that might be dangerous, because basically you're fishing for specifics, then let's just cite the hypothetical idea that all the gingers should be run out of town - an idea from which I'm sure you can freely extrapolate. Failing that, perhaps you we can go back to where this started and have another go.If you do need that protection, why not tell us what ideas you need to be protected from?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
Re: Even more problematic stuff
Please see 'Brian Peacock' further along in this post. He uses the term. I'm trying to figure it out.Brian Peacock wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:47 amWho are we talking about who 'allows a dangerous idea' and how would they be harming me? Please be specific.
So you need protection from WHOM? Those who would allow dangerous ideas (which you refuse to define, though it is your phrase) So if the government allows one of these 'dangerous ideas', you need protection from their liberal approach?Now you're catching on.
You're trying to put words in my mouth, and failing. What I need protection against are those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas.Cunt wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:23 amMaybe you could clarify this for me.I am trying to understand if you need protection from ideas, or if that protection is only needed for other people.and for that I can only rely upon that which we all rely: democratically made and maintained laws that serve the common good. No doubt you can now find some fault with that and thus we can wander further from the point - as you wish.
Now you're just playing dumb. Why not use your imagination(?), but let's cite the idea that one's personal beliefs authorise their own justification. But as I doubt you have the patience to consider what that means and why that might be dangerous, because basically you're fishing for specifics, then let's just cite the hypothetical idea that all the gingers should be run out of town - an idea from which I'm sure you can freely extrapolate. Failing that, perhaps you we can go back to where this started and have another go.If you do need that protection, why not tell us what ideas you need to be protected from?
Shit, Piss, Cock, Cunt, Motherfucker, Cocksucker and Tits.
-various artists
-various artists
The 'Walsh Question' 'What Is A Woman?' I'll put an answer here when someone posts one that is clear and comprehensible, by apostates to the Faith.
Update: I've been offered one!
Strong ideas don't require censorship to survive. Weak ideas cannot survive without it.
- Brian Peacock
- Tipping cows since 1946
- Posts: 37953
- Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 11:44 am
- About me: Ablate me:
- Location: Location: Location:
- Contact:
Re: Even more problematic stuff
Those who would give free reign to dangerous ideas.
I've given two examples which you've refused to engage with.Those who would allow dangerous ideas (which you refuse to define, though it is your phrase)
But first we could do with a uniform of course. Let's adopt blue shirts, and while we're at it we might as well call ourselves The Blue Shirt Freedom Brigade. Blue is the opposite colour to orange, and you know how we hate orange. Let's start by chucking stones through the windows of all the gingers in town. And if the gingers don't get the message then we'll burn them out. But these are just ideas, so there's nothing to worry about right? If any gingers remains in defiance... well... a bit of strange fruit (lol) hanging from those poplar trees on the edge of town will make sure they get the message. But these is just an idea right? Nothing for anyone to be concerned with?
Hey, showing them ginger bastards who's in charge round here is just an idea right, so it's the government who should actually be protecting our rights, right? We have a right to say what we want, about whomever we want, wherever we want and whenever we want. Gingers will not replace us. After all, we're actually the one's who are doing something about it, who are out there protecting the townsfolk from the ginger menace... but what we really need is for the government to see sense and not just allow or endorse our radical ginger program, but to adopt our aims and ideals as policy. For too long now the ginger-loving state has cow-towed to the gingers and their faux-ginger sympathisers, and a corrupt constitution which treats ginger filth as equals has stood in our way. It's going to be hard, but if we are united we can achieve our goals. We're going to demonstrate, and agitate, until we get what we need - what we deserve, our birthright: a society free of all gingers. What we need to do is start infiltrating the political system, building bridges with the money men and those in power, writing articles, holding meetings, proposing legislation, getting our people into positions of influence and generally working towards undermining the farcical laws that have protected the ginger scum for far too long. And if that doesn't work we can start looking at more radical solutions than beatings and burnings. I mean, why should we even obey laws which protect the gingers, which allow ginger toe-rags to mix with and infect our kids with their disgusting gingerist agenda? But these are just idea right, so no harm's being done, there's nothing to worry about?So if the government allows one of these 'dangerous ideas', you need protection from their liberal approach?
Rationalia relies on voluntary donations. There is no obligation of course, but if you value this place and want to see it continue please consider making a small donation towards the forum's running costs.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
.
Details on how to do that can be found here.
.
"It isn't necessary to imagine the world ending in fire or ice.
There are two other possibilities: one is paperwork, and the other is nostalgia."
Frank Zappa
"This is how humanity ends; bickering over the irrelevant."
Clinton Huxley » 21 Jun 2012 » 14:10:36 GMT
- laklak
- Posts: 20981
- Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
- About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
- Location: Tannhauser Gate
- Contact:
Re: Even more problematic stuff
Well, they don't have souls, so....
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests