|
Post by mikef6 on May 17, 2017 21:53:53 GMT
Let me see if I can help by translating the O.P. into English from the Conservative. It is close to a literal translation to make it:
“So-called Free Speech is just for conservatives. We speak. You listen. You don’t get to talk back. You don’t get to protest my bigotry and hate. You are not allowed the Free Speech that you should have to hold legally protected demonstrations and to try persuade institutions supporting hate-talk to dis-allow right-wing extremist speakers. When institutions cancel our speeches – as is THEIR own Free Speech right – I will whine and cry that conservatives are being oppressed and that democracy is in danger. Which comes back to the original proposition that only Conservatives get Free Speech.”
Don’t thank me for this translation. I only want to Give Back.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on May 17, 2017 22:00:59 GMT
tpfkar You're reliable. ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/giveup.gif) Would you believe me if I told you that I had communication with them?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 17, 2017 22:56:00 GMT
Incidentally, Bryce, the planes that spray the chemtrails over my locality don't have passenger windows or identification numbers. Nice try, though. What altitude is this aircraft flying at? And what specific airframe does it resemble? What type of engines? Prop, turbofan? How many are there? How often do you see this particular plane? Was it ONE time, or is this a daily occurrence for you?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 17, 2017 23:02:39 GMT
Oh great, another lib who thinks nuking the Middle East is a great idea just so long as you don't use a racial slur while doing it. Do us a favor and don't presume to know what other people "think" until told otherwise by that individual. It makes you look rather moronic when you do. Neither the shape of the earth, nor the physics of high altitude aircraft performance, nor the verbiage of the Bill of Rights has anything to do with political ideology, much less my thoughts about nuclear strikes or Middle Eastern foreign relations. And for the record, before you assume too much too soon you should know without specifics that I not only play a specific role in the Nuclear Enterprise, but I've also been deployed in support of ongoing combat operations IN the Middle East. So if you would like my thoughts on either the use of nuclear weapons in warfare OR my views as to the US role in specific Middle Eastern affairs as it pertains to national security, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on either of those subjects. But I'd advise you not to assume or pretend that you know what my views are on either of those issues.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on May 17, 2017 23:04:23 GMT
Oh great, another lib who thinks nuking the Middle East is a great idea just so long as you don't use a racial slur while doing it. Do us a favor and don't presume to know what other people "think" until told otherwise by that individual. It makes you look rather moronic when you do. Neither the shape of the earth, nor the physics of high altitude aircraft performance, nor the verbiage of the Bill of Rights has anything to do with political ideology, much less my thoughts about nuclear strikes or Middle Eastern foreign relations. And for the record, before you assume too much too soon you should know without specifics that I not only play a specific role in the Nuclear Enterprise, but I've also been deployed in support of ongoing combat operations IN the Middle East. So if you would like my thoughts on either the use of nuclear weapons in warfare OR my views as to the US role in specific Middle Eastern affairs as it pertains to national security, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on either of those subjects. But I'd advise you not to assume or pretend that you know what my views are on either of those issues. You mean like when you told me that I hate people?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 17, 2017 23:06:03 GMT
Do us a favor and don't presume to know what other people "think" until told otherwise by that individual. It makes you look rather moronic when you do. Neither the shape of the earth, nor the physics of high altitude aircraft performance, nor the verbiage of the Bill of Rights has anything to do with political ideology, much less my thoughts about nuclear strikes or Middle Eastern foreign relations. And for the record, before you assume too much too soon you should know without specifics that I not only play a specific role in the Nuclear Enterprise, but I've also been deployed in support of ongoing combat operations IN the Middle East. So if you would like my thoughts on either the use of nuclear weapons in warfare OR my views as to the US role in specific Middle Eastern affairs as it pertains to national security, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on either of those subjects. But I'd advise you not to assume or pretend that you know what my views are on either of those issues. You mean like when you told me that I hate people? That's not an "assumption". When you demonstrate hatred through the use of speech or by action, then one no longer need presume anything about the subject. The presumption becomes confirmed through direct observational evidence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2017 23:17:57 GMT
I live pretty close to you Jenny, what side effects have you been suffering from the 'spraying'? Do you wear a mask in public? How is your bloodwork... oh sorry, that's a silly question. I'm sure the entire medical field is in on the conspiracy. What altitude is this aircraft flying at? And what specific airframe does it resemble? What type of engines? Prop, turbofan? How many are there? How often do you see this particular plane? Was it ONE time, or is this a daily occurrence for you? Was that for me or Jenny? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png)
|
|
|
Post by scienceisgod on May 17, 2017 23:39:09 GMT
Oh great, another lib who thinks nuking the Middle East is a great idea just so long as you don't use a racial slur while doing it. Do us a favor and don't presume to know what other people "think" until told otherwise by that individual. It makes you look rather moronic when you do. Neither the shape of the earth, nor the physics of high altitude aircraft performance, nor the verbiage of the Bill of Rights has anything to do with political ideology, much less my thoughts about nuclear strikes or Middle Eastern foreign relations. And for the record, before you assume too much too soon you should know without specifics that I not only play a specific role in the Nuclear Enterprise, but I've also been deployed in support of ongoing combat operations IN the Middle East. So if you would like my thoughts on either the use of nuclear weapons in warfare OR my views as to the US role in specific Middle Eastern affairs as it pertains to national security, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on either of those subjects. But I'd advise you not to assume or pretend that you know what my views are on either of those issues. Wrong. You singled out "hate speech" as the only objectionable speech. You're in favor of pro-war speech, pro-bank bailout speech, etc... You're a corporatist warmonger who thinks hell is reserved for people who say "colored person" instead of "person of color". You think people in the ghetto listening to rap music love Wall Street as much as you in your Ivory Tower? Get off it. We can all see that you are opposed to freedom of speech and weren't willing to admit the real reason why.
|
|
blade
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@blade
Posts: 2,005
Likes: 636
|
Post by blade on May 17, 2017 23:42:25 GMT
You mean like when you told me that I hate people? That's not an "assumption". When you demonstrate hatred through the use of speech or by action, then one no longer need presume anything about the subject. The presumption becomes confirmed through direct observational evidence. Yet I dont hate anyone.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 18, 2017 1:36:52 GMT
Was that for me or Jenny? ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) Oh, sorry...wrong button, lol. It was for him.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 18, 2017 1:42:03 GMT
Do us a favor and don't presume to know what other people "think" until told otherwise by that individual. It makes you look rather moronic when you do. Neither the shape of the earth, nor the physics of high altitude aircraft performance, nor the verbiage of the Bill of Rights has anything to do with political ideology, much less my thoughts about nuclear strikes or Middle Eastern foreign relations. And for the record, before you assume too much too soon you should know without specifics that I not only play a specific role in the Nuclear Enterprise, but I've also been deployed in support of ongoing combat operations IN the Middle East. So if you would like my thoughts on either the use of nuclear weapons in warfare OR my views as to the US role in specific Middle Eastern affairs as it pertains to national security, I'd be happy to share my thoughts on either of those subjects. But I'd advise you not to assume or pretend that you know what my views are on either of those issues. Wrong. You singled out "hate speech" as the only objectionable speech. Wrong. I used that as one possible example. According to who exactly? You? What did I tell you about assumptions? Why do you think you know things about me? For if you do, you'd know that I don't even believe in hell. At this point I'm starting to think you have confused me with someone else (as none of your assumptions reflect reality).
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on May 18, 2017 1:42:56 GMT
That's not an "assumption". When you demonstrate hatred through the use of speech or by action, then one no longer need presume anything about the subject. The presumption becomes confirmed through direct observational evidence. Yet I dont hate anyone. As they all say! ![](http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e41/imdbv2/imdbsmileys/yes.gif)
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 18, 2017 6:26:29 GMT
Then the pilot needs to be fired, because he's all over the sky. Back. Forth. Back. Forth. Spray. Spray. Spray. A couple of months ago I saw one of them do a one-eighty and fly back the way he came. What, did he forget were point B was? Did he realize he was flying the wrong way? It was to the North right over where a friend of mine lives, and I prayed she was watching, and she was. She didn't see the plane that sprayed it but she saw the U-shaped cloud it left for several hours later, and he brought it up me the next time when she called me. That is what finally convinced her it is real. I had been telling her about it for two or three years and she didn't believe it. Now she does contrailscience.com/racetrack-contrails/👍 No, Proggy, that won't work at all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 8:12:48 GMT
I'm fairly close to being a free speech absolutist. Libel/slander is the main exception to my belief in freedom of speech, as well as the right to privacy/data protection. If someone calls me a faggot, I would not have any desire to report them to any authority. I think that private companies should have the right to ban certain forms of expression within their premises, but think it's absurd that calling someone by a racial epithet is something that can result in legal sanction. It's not even so much that I sympathise with the right to free speech of the people using racially insulting language; it's more that I find it terribly undignified that someone would report someone to the authorities (running to teacher) because of some name calling. And I don't think that government should have laws which retard the emotional maturity of its citizens (which is what hate speech laws do).
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 18, 2017 8:26:42 GMT
I'm fairly close to being a free speech absolutist. Libel/slander is the main exception to my belief in freedom of speech, as well as the right to privacy/data protection. If someone calls me a faggot, I would not have any desire to report them to any authority. I think that private companies should have the right to ban certain forms of expression within their premises, but think it's absurd that calling someone by a racial epithet is something that can result in legal sanction. It's not even so much that I sympathise with the right to free speech of the people using racially insulting language; it's more that I find it terribly undignified that someone would report someone to the authorities (running to teacher) because of some name calling. And I don't think that government should have laws which retard the emotional maturity of its citizens (which is what hate speech laws do). I remember Ronald Reagan signing hate speech legislation in the 80's, and it was one thing he did that I was definitely against. About twenty years later when I got on the Internet I read that he signed the legislation with great reluctance, but hey, he still signed it. Once that can of worms is open, the parameters of what is considered hate speech will become increasingly wider as the years go by. Remembering all the times I was called carrot top in school, I suppose it could technically qualify as hate speech if enough redheads got together and made a fuss about it. Fortunately I haven't seen that yet and hopefully I won't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 8:33:16 GMT
I'm fairly close to being a free speech absolutist. Libel/slander is the main exception to my belief in freedom of speech, as well as the right to privacy/data protection. If someone calls me a faggot, I would not have any desire to report them to any authority. I think that private companies should have the right to ban certain forms of expression within their premises, but think it's absurd that calling someone by a racial epithet is something that can result in legal sanction. It's not even so much that I sympathise with the right to free speech of the people using racially insulting language; it's more that I find it terribly undignified that someone would report someone to the authorities (running to teacher) because of some name calling. And I don't think that government should have laws which retard the emotional maturity of its citizens (which is what hate speech laws do). I remember Ronald Reagan signing hate speech legislation in the 80's, and it was one thing he did that I was definitely against. About twenty years later when I got on the Internet I read that he signed the legislation with great reluctance, but hey, he still signed it. Once that can of worms is open, the parameters of what is considered hate speech will become increasingly wider as the years go by. Remembering all the times I was called carrot top in school, I suppose it could technically qualify as hate speech if enough redheads got together and made a fuss about it. Fortunately I haven't seen that yet and hopefully I won't. I never knew that there was hate speech legislation in the US at all, let alone under the Reagan administration. I wasn't even upset about the gay taunts in school when I was still coming to terms with my own sexuality (although I realise that people are different in this respect). In my opinion, if someone gets severely upset and bent out of shape over some name calling, then it ought to behove THEM to work on not being so easily offended. The world shouldn't be baby-proofed to protect those who are the most delicate.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 18, 2017 13:08:30 GMT
First comment on the video: you're not a free speech absolutist if you believe there should be any limitations on speech, including libel/slander/defamation. I'm a free speech absolutist. I do not believe there should be any limitations on speech, period. No exceptions.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 18, 2017 13:16:49 GMT
Second comment (aside from "holy moly was that one girl hot"), is that I don't buy his explanation for the phenomena at hand. It doesn't make sense to blame postmodernism (which I'm quite sympathetic to in many ways), because postmodernism wouldn't accept something like "hate speech should be banned" without question anymore than it would accept anything else without question. I do agree that SJWism seems to have emerged from academia, but I think just how/why it emerged from academia is going to be a lot more complex to track down. Maybe someone has at least started to explore this, but I'm not familiar with their research if so.
And on the other hand, maybe it didn't emerge initially from academia--at least not directly--after all. It could have started as something like a simply upshot of a lawsuit-happy culture, where an overabundance of lawyers helped us turn into a society where people could successfully sue someone else for all sorts of "mental anguish." When you have that situation in a highly capitalistic culture where everyone is doing anything they can to avoid losing money, including universities, that leads to kowtowing to avoidance of such suits.
We also have a prison complex that benefits from having more, not less prisoners.
There are a crapload of businesses and jobs that depend on there being someone who did something wrong, so that we can prosecute them. That encourages many people to consider a wider variety of actions to be transgressions.
As with many other things in our culture, when you're trying to figure out why things are the way they are, it's smart to "follow the money."
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on May 18, 2017 15:39:41 GMT
No, Proggy, that won't work at all.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 18, 2017 17:50:21 GMT
No, Proggy, that won't work at all.
Your memory is short. No airports around here for planes of that size. If there were, the holding pattern would not be an uncommon sight. He flew over the horizon from east to west spraying a trail all the way. Then he made a sharp U-turn and flew back the way he came, spraying all the way. You're protesting too much. Are you trying to convince yourself by convincing me?
|
|