|
Post by progressiveelement on May 18, 2017 20:15:58 GMT
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? Maybe they're ridding themselves of surplus Agent Orange?
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on May 19, 2017 6:50:41 GMT
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? Maybe they're ridding themselves of surplus Agent Orange? Aluminum, strontium, and barium.
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on May 19, 2017 7:42:27 GMT
Maybe they're ridding themselves of surplus Agent Orange? Aluminum, strontium, and barium. They managed to nuke the magnetosphere in 1962, inadvertently creating an artificial radiation belt that lasted 5 years, crippling a third of low orbit satellites at the time. The UK only found out about it when an attempted satellite deployment failed, and they could not see a reason for it. The US rather sheepishly were forced to admit, "ummm... We kinda irradiated that part of space... Our bad!" Maybe they've done something else to screw things up. 👌
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2017 9:41:51 GMT
I'm a free speech absolutist. I do not believe there should be any limitations on speech, period. No exceptions. Does that mean that false rape claims which irrevocably destroy a person's reputation and force them to go through the stress of being legally investigated should carry no criminal sentence to deter such libellous claims? Or even that someone with malicious intent should be able to spread unfounded lies about a famous person with the goal of destroying them? Or what if someone who had it in for you decided to implicate you in a murder which has taken place (there have been many cases that have been convicted on witness testimony alone, or have been otherwise heavily reliant on witness testimony). You're right to say that those who call themselves free speech absolutists should believe in no restrictions (even in the types of examples cited above). But I'm a fairly outspoken advocate of free speech, yet I find such an absolutist stance to be quite untenable.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on May 19, 2017 10:29:10 GMT
I'm a free speech absolutist. I do not believe there should be any limitations on speech, period. No exceptions. Does that mean that false rape claims which irrevocably destroy a person's reputation and force them to go through the stress of being legally investigated should carry no criminal sentence to deter such libellous claims? Or even that someone with malicious intent should be able to spread unfounded lies about a famous person with the goal of destroying them? Or what if someone who had it in for you decided to implicate you in a murder which has taken place (there have been many cases that have been convicted on witness testimony alone, or have been otherwise heavily reliant on witness testimony). You're right to say that those who call themselves free speech absolutists should believe in no restrictions (even in the types of examples cited above). But I'm a fairly outspoken advocate of free speech, yet I find such an absolutist stance to be quite untenable. Yes, it means all of that. In my opinion it's a huge problem that people so readily believe anything just because someone claims it, and it's a huge problem that anyone would be convicted of a crime based on witness testimony alone. Conviction of any crime should necessarily require solid physical evidence. Anything less than that shouldn't be bothered with whatsoever. The problem that people will believe a claim just because someone makes it isn't at all limited to libelous/slanderous etc. claims. It includes things like scientific claims, religious claims, advertising claims, personal claims, and all sorts of things. Having a policy that some classes of unfounded speech are illegal encourages people to believe things just because someone said something, which is just what I do not want. In that situation folks believe that claims have merit purely on the grounds of those claims not being prosecuted. Under my policies, culture will change so that people are far less likely to believe anything just because someone says something, because people will realize that one is allowed to say any shit that one would like to say, one is allowed to try to "sell" any crap one likes, with all sorts of (possibly manipulative, possibly devious, possibly greed-oriented, possibly revenge-oriented, etc.) personal motivations for it. And all of that possibly with collusion. It's good for people to be far, far more skeptical in general, far less trusting. It's good for people to demand solid evidence of any claim that has any importance and to know how to critically assess it for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on May 19, 2017 16:58:15 GMT
I'm a free speech absolutist. I do not believe there should be any limitations on speech, period. No exceptions. Does that mean that false rape claims which irrevocably destroy a person's reputation and force them to go through the stress of being legally investigated should carry no criminal sentence to deter such libellous claims? Or even that someone with malicious intent should be able to spread unfounded lies about a famous person with the goal of destroying them? If a statement or accusation can be demonstrated as libel, it's not protected by "free speech". As such, you *can* say these things (I mean who could stop you?) but the same protections don't apply.
|
|