Canadian school suspends student for not removing YouTube videos, threatens schoolmates - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Novistador;30317822] So Yes, If the societal status quo is "black people are terrible" and your a black person grappling with this idea self confidence is exactly what you need to put that Issue to rest, it might not be easy but important ideological issues seldom are.[/QUOTE] It's obvious you don't have a 2000 year old sentiment against you. [editline]7th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;30317781]Now i see why Zeke sticks to one liners most of the time.[/QUOTE] what is this supposed to mean anyway

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30317860]It's obvious you don't have a 2000 year old sentiment against you. [editline]7th June 2011[/editline] what is this supposed to mean anyway [/QUOTE] Obviously the confidence of one minority member is not going to end racism everywhere forever. But that self confidence is whats necessary for them to render the psychological effects of racists moot.

[QUOTE=Novistador;30317898]Obviously the confidence of one minority member is not going to end racism everywhere forever. But that self confidence is whats necessary for them to render the psychological effects of racists moot.[/QUOTE] I've tried to be polite, but it's time to shut up now unless you can show that you've overcome some sort of adversity.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30317934]I've tried to be polite, but it's time to shut up now unless you can show that you've overcome some sort of adversity.[/QUOTE] "I'm against hate speech, but I don't think an idea is valid if it comes from a white person" I don't think you understand what I'm saying about self confidence.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30317835]No, why would I? How are those disparaging to anyone?[/quote] They're disparaging to people who believe the opposite or people who believe climate change would make the earth explode. They're causing real harm because the earth is melting! shut them up with thought police immediately. [QUOTE=Zeke129;30317835]Why is mental harm considered irrelevant to you? Don't people have the right to dignity?[/quote] No, they don't. First of all, you'd have to define dignity. People do NOT have a right to not be offended, period. There is no legitimate argument for this position, I'd like to see you make one that wasn't based off of pure emotion. Do I have a right to dignity when people disagree with me politically? Why when race or sexual preference is involved is this any different? [QUOTE=Zeke129;30317835] Holy shit, majority alert. [/quote] Really? Where. Point to it on the map or a group of people. [QUOTE=Zeke129;30317835]The WBC has said the things that other anti-gay people were too afraid to.[/QUOTE] I know you're gay and everything, but unless you've spoken to some of these people you have no right to make that assertion. Sure some people are "anti-gay" for religious reasons, and they're wrong in terms of religion even but that aside, not all of them want to see gay people killed. You paint all people "anti-gay" with a very broad brush. Most of them are just mislead by the church and the status quo, it doesn't mean they wish to completely ruin the lives of gay individuals, a majority of them only see their institution of marriage as "sacred" (a talk for another time) as being encroached upon. [editline]e[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;30317860]what is this supposed to mean anyway[/QUOTE] It's just that you seem a lot more witty when you're making cracks in one sentence than when you advocate the destruction of free speech rights.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30317756]So why is it okay when many individual people who may not belong to a single bona fide group do the same things? Everyone who says gays / blacks / jews / whatevers need to die or something don't necessarily belong to a group but they don't have to because in a lot of cases the things they're saying are supported by society, or at least met with a large amount of apathy[/QUOTE] Because you can't prosecute society at large, only specific people Harrasment isn't harrasment if it consists of many insignificant anonomoys statements and attitudes that add up to something unpleasant. Then your just living in a shitty society that needs to be improved by people who have taken the time to think and discover the truth of the societies shittiness. Ideological apathy is a terrible thing but it is again not a thing you can prosecute somebody for and can only be fought with knowledge, and again, you can't force somebody to think, or think on their behalf. Even supposing that hate speech laws exist you can only use them against specific people or discrete groups, not all of society that is one level where the requirement for truth is painfully obvious.

[QUOTE=s0beit;30317988]They're disparaging to people who believe the opposite or people who believe climate change would make the earth explode. They're causing real harm because the earth is melting! shut them up with thought police immediately.[/quote] There's a difference between disparaging comments made towards a person and disparaging comments made towards an idea. [QUOTE=s0beit;30317988]No, they don't. First of all, you'd have to define dignity. People do NOT have a right to not be offended, period. There is no legitimate argument for this position, I'd like to see you make one that wasn't based off of pure emotion.[/quote] I define dignity, in this case, to mean the ability to live in a society that does not demonize you to the point of putting you at a disadvantage due to how people see your race/nationality/religion/sexuality. [QUOTE=s0beit;30317988]Do I have a right to dignity when people disagree with me politically? Why when race or sexual preference is involved is this any different?[/quote] See top statement [QUOTE=s0beit;30317988]I know you're gay and everything, but unless you've spoken to some of these people you have no right to make that assertion. Sure some people are "anti-gay" for religious reasons, and they're wrong in terms of religion even but that aside, not all of them want to see gay people killed. You paint all people "anti-gay" with a very broad brush. Most of them are just mislead by the church and the status quo, it doesn't mean they wish to completely ruin the lives of gay individuals, a majority of them only see their institution of marriage as "sacred" (a talk for another time) as being encroached upon.[/quote] Your assertions here aren't any less baseless than mine [QUOTE=s0beit;30317988]It's just that you seem a lot more witty when you're making cracks in one sentence than when you advocate the destruction of free speech rights.[/QUOTE] If I'm making one liners in a political debate it's usually because I can quickly satirize something to get the point across, I post like this when that simply won't cut it. Sometimes a bit of rational discourse is good, even on a stupid internet forum. [QUOTE=Novistador;30317960]"I'm against hate speech, but I don't think an idea is valid if it comes from a white person" I don't think you understand what I'm saying about self confidence.[/QUOTE] You seem like the kind of person who uses terms such as "reverse racism"

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30317934]I've tried to be polite, but it's time to shut up now unless you can show that you've overcome some sort of adversity.[/QUOTE] The Ideas I'm talking about here are universal for all human beings, not being a racist, I don't think that the nature of Black people, or Native people, or any other ethnic group is so different from the Nature of White people that they need to live their lives by entirely different rules and Philosophical systems. What I was saying about Self confidence is true no matter your situation. Its true for human beings.

Another point i'd like to make here, just to be clear. This argument isn't "Wow i really love those bigoted people" or "Those bigoted people are assholes". Of course they're assholes, nobody is really debating that here. The most offensive of situations often forces people to violate basic fundamental rights of human beings, the argument is, which right holds superior here? Is it the right to not be offended by people you find insensitive, stupid or wrong? Or the right to say whatever you want to say in a free society? (ha, haven't had one of those in a while anyway, I know the temptation is strong to say, "Why start now?") The right to free speech is too important, unfortunately, more important than any one individual's right to be free of offensive speech. It's been violated a lot of times already, but that doesn't make the arguments for new violations any stronger.

It isn't so much the right to be free of offensive speech, but the right to be free of the things that [i]hateful[/i] speech causes. There is actually a distinction between offensive and hateful here Offensive is "haha black people like KFC and steal bikes lol", hateful is "let's go back to the 1960s so we can hang those niggers again"

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30318176]It isn't so much the right to be free of offensive speech, but the right to be free of the things that [i]hateful[/i] speech causes. There is actually a distinction between offensive and hateful here Offensive is "haha black people like KFC and steal bikes lol", hateful is "let's go back to the 1960s so we can hang those niggers again"[/QUOTE] No, that's the distinction between a stereotype and overtly racist speech. They're both offensive, they're both wrong. Logically, they should both be illegal or they should both be legal. If they aren't actually hanging black people there's nothing wrong with it. If they do, they get to serve life in prison, fun fun, if they don't, well then they're just spouting a bunch of speech people can readily ignore. It's the difference between saying "I'm going to beat your ass" and actually beating somebody. One that causes harm and the other which is just a noise.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30318124] You seem like the kind of person who uses terms such as "reverse racism"[/QUOTE] I use terms like "racism" Racism is Racism no matter where it comes from and who its targeted at. A lot of people for reasons inconceivable to me seem to think that racism is only bad if its directed towards people who are poorer than the racist. The only reason they oppose racism is because of some concrete immediate negative effect it has on someone poor, ex "racism is bad because the black man couldn't eat in the restaurant." They seem to have no Interest in the fact that the idea that the sum total actions of ones ancestors determines the actions of someone is a false idea, and it is the falsehood of this idea that makes it bad. [editline]7th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;30318176]It isn't so much the right to be free of offensive speech, but the right to be free of the things that [i]hateful[/i] speech causes. There is actually a distinction between offensive and hateful here Offensive is "haha black people like KFC and steal bikes lol", hateful is "let's go back to the 1960s so we can hang those niggers again"[/QUOTE] If someone was seriously encouraging people to hang black people that would be incitement to violence, which is not free speech but itself a form of violence, If a mob boss issues a "hit" you don't need to wait for the target to be killed before you take any action. Incitement to violence is when someone says "go out and harm X people/person" Hate speech is when someones says "X people are dirty bad people"

Alright so either of you want to tell me why you're okay with slander being illegal but not hate speech?

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30318331]Alright so either of you want to tell me why you're okay with slander being illegal but not hate speech?[/QUOTE] I'm not entirley sure slander should be illegal. Its an issue I've been pondering for some time and can't really come to a good conclusion on.

[QUOTE=Novistador;30318254] They seem to have no Interest in the fact that the idea that the sum total actions of ones ancestors determines the actions of someone is a false idea, and it is the falsehood of this idea that makes it bad.[/QUOTE] It has nothing to do with what white people's ancestors did, it has to do with the institutionalized racism that's still very alive and well today, right now But that's another topic [editline]7th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Novistador;30318347]I'm not entirley sure slander should be illegal. Its an issue I've been pondering for some time and can't really come to a good conclusion on.[/QUOTE] Mind telling me your name and where you work? I want to rent a billboard nearby that says you fuck goats.

I would've gone to this school if i hadn't been put in the gifted program.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30318353]It has nothing to do with what white people's ancestors did, it has to do with the institutionalized racism that's still very alive and well today, right now But that's another topic [editline]7th June 2011[/editline] Mind telling me your name and where you work? I want to rent a billboard nearby that says you fuck goats.[/QUOTE] But I don't and people who know me know I don't and any intelligent person would know not to believe that statement without sufficient evidence. and even if I did in fact fuck goats I should accept that fact and not be ashamed of it(that is if it was morally good to do such a thing). If I was being a hypocrite and was an outspoken anti-goatfucking activist, then I would have to accept my shame and eventually work to regain peoples trust and come to terms with the difference between my actions and my words.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30318124]There's a difference between disparaging comments made towards a person and disparaging comments made towards an idea.[/quote] Not really. People have a right to have an opinion on the actions or opinions of others, no matter the scale of insensitivity. People without opinions or ideas are hardly people at all, and I don't think you'll find one. [QUOTE=Zeke129;30318124]I define dignity, in this case, to mean the ability to live in a society that does not demonize you to the point of putting you at a disadvantage due to how people see your race/nationality/religion/sexuality.[/quote] But they don't.... If you believe Christianity is the crux of all evil (as a lot of atheists in fact, do), good for you. It doesn't force me to believe that, likewise the WBC doesn't make me believe anything. I'll believe whatever i want to believe, and the people who cheer the WBC on probably thought those things before there was a WBC in the first place. (Are there any WBC cheerleaders? I haven't seen any) [QUOTE=Zeke129;30318124]Your assertions here aren't any less baseless than mine[/quote] So we're tied, now one of us just has to dig up the evidence, I think you'll probably have some trouble finding out all people who support anti-gay marriage legislation secretly want to load gays on to trains and have them executed.

and if somebody decided to take violent action against me because of my goatfucking then they should in a proper society be arrested, and if I became so popular because of the goat fucking accusation that I was in danger it would be the police's responsibility to protect me. [editline]7th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Zeke129;30318124]I define dignity, in this case, to mean the ability to live in a society that does not demonize you to the point of putting you at a disadvantage due to how people see your race/nationality/religion/sexuality. "[/QUOTE] I'm going to throw out there right now that there is no such thing as a right to control other peoples views or evaluations, which is what your getting at here. You don't have a right to not have other people look down on you for whatever reason. The right to life is a right to sustain your life, not an obligation that other people need to sustain you.

[QUOTE=Novistador;30318460]and if somebody decided to take violent action against me because of my goatfucking then they should in a proper society be arrested, and if I became so popular because of the goat fucking accusation that I was in danger it would be the police's responsibility to protect me.[/QUOTE] What about all the opportunities for relationships and careers that you'll lose because nobody wants to be around an alleged goat fucker? You'll never really know when and where it's happening but you'll feel the disadvantage and not be able to do anything about it. Hate speech seeds the same kind of prejudice in society whether it's blatantly apparent or not. [editline]7th June 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=s0beit;30318425]I think you'll probably have some trouble finding out all people who support anti-gay marriage legislation secretly want to load gays on to trains and have them executed.[/QUOTE] Likely harder for you to find scrupulous reasons to support denying rights to gays

[QUOTE=Novistador;30318460]and if somebody decided to take violent action against me because of my goatfucking then they should in a proper society be arrested, and if I became so popular because of the goat fucking accusation that I was in danger it would be the police's responsibility to protect me.[/quote] You have one clinching flaw in that logic. You know those people who are convicted of a crime and a few years later, they're released after new evidence proves their innocence? How many of those people go on to live a perfect happy life?

[QUOTE=Novistador;30318420]But I don't and people who know me know I don't and [b]any intelligent person[/b] would know not to believe that statement without sufficient evidence.[/QUOTE] Then I've met almost 10 people that are actually intelligent. Thank you for making that clear to me.

The board of directors was right. I saw his videos, and before I knew it I was raping churches, burning women, and destroying the moral fabric of society. I'm also a flaming homosexual, and my new boyfriend is a big fan of Lady Gaga. Not Even Once.

LOOK AT THE PUPPET!

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30318530]What about all the opportunities for relationships and careers that you'll lose because nobody wants to be around an alleged goat fucker? You'll never really know when and where it's happening but you'll feel the disadvantage and not be able to do anything about it. Hate speech seeds the same kind of prejudice in society whether it's blatantly apparent or not.[/quote] No. See, this is where your argument falls flat on it's face. "Hate speech" doesn't cause this, hateful people do. The speech on it's own merit isn't causing the disturbance at all. Just shutting people up doesn't solve anything. There's rumors all around society, and what do you do if you don't know the source of it? What if somebody gains a bad reputation anonymously, falsely? Nobody to punish but life goes on, you can try to convince people that it's untrue and further, who would believe such a silly thing? If I heard a rumor some guy was a goat fucker, as a businessmen, who was far more qualified than my other applicants, I'd be an idiot to turn him down on conjecture alone. [QUOTE=Zeke129;30318530]Likely harder for you to find scrupulous reasons to support denying rights to gays[/QUOTE] Not sure you meant "scrupulous" but whatever, I was raised catholic so i actually have some room here to debate (note i said raised, I'm not a catholic anymore), to religious people they see being gay as a sin of some kind, a slight against god. Catholics however (as opposed to evangelical Christians or other sorts) see people's decisions as their own, and see that despite other people doing what they believe to be against god or their own moral opinion, their own choice. They believe god does the punishing, not them. While i find all of those arguments without merit, the point is, they'll still oppose legal marriage for gay individuals based on their moral belief system. That isn't to say they want them all shot or locked in a cage on behalf of their morality. They don't believe so much that gays being married will be a sign of the apocalypse, so much as they believe their religion will be slighted in some way, that they'll be forced to marry gay individuals against their will or some other inane fear such as that. There's nuts and you hear about them on television, radio and the internet - but that isn't everyone's opinion. Kevin Smith is also a Christian, loves the gays, not everyone is locked in to one single opinion on the matter. [QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;30318573]You have one clinching flaw in that logic. You know those people who are convicted of a crime and a few years later, they're released after new evidence proves their innocence? How many of those people go on to live a perfect happy life?[/QUOTE] That's a totally separate argument about state record keeping and the effects of being imprisoned, by a state, I hope you know that. It isn't like the a single person is going around saying "Hey you know that guy, he committed a robbery once".

[QUOTE=s0beit;30318795] While i find all of those arguments without merit, the point is, they'll still oppose legal marriage for gay individuals based on their moral belief system. That isn't to say they want them all shot or locked in a cage on behalf of their morality. They don't believe so much that gays being married will be a sign of the apocalypse, so much as they believe their religion will be slighted in some way, that they'll be forced to marry gay individuals against their will or some other inane fear such as that. [/QUOTE] I actually heard something a lot different. Namely that they're doing it out of kindness, trying to protect them from eternal damnation.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;30318844]I actually heard something a lot different. Namely that they're doing it out of kindness, trying to protect them from eternal damnation.[/QUOTE] Yes that'd be the other camp i mentioned, mostly comprised of Christians and evangelicals and such. If half of those morons actually read the bible they'd know that's not their duty at all.

[QUOTE=s0beit;30318894]Yes that'd be the other camp i mentioned, mostly comprised of Christians and evangelicals and such. If half of those morons actually read the bible they'd know that's not their duty at all.[/QUOTE] I'm guessing they don't see it as a duty derived from the bible but more as a moral duty to themselves. You know, like when you're, say, at the supermarket and you see an old lady trying to get something from the top shelf. In this case, sort of like 'that man is probably a good person, i'd hate to see him go to hell for this'.

[QUOTE=Zeke129;30318530]What about all the opportunities for relationships and careers that you'll lose because nobody wants to be around an alleged goat fucker? You'll never really know when and where it's happening but you'll feel the disadvantage and not be able to do anything about it. s[/QUOTE] It would be an unfortunate situation but I don't think I would be missing out much by being viewed unfavorably by people who take unsupported assertations as undeniable fact. Oh!, but wait, according to you thats everybody, and merely whispering a statement into someones ear causes them to believe it unquestioningly and act accordingly, how silly of me. Honestly unless there was some sort of very very skillfully edited video or photos (Which in this day an age don't really count for much due to the ease and sophistication of modern image editing software) I doubt most people would beleive a statement like that just because its written on a billboard somwhere. I once saw "Johnathan is a faggot" scrawled on a bathroom Stall but I didn't take that as conclusive proof that Johnathan was in fact a homosexual.

[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;30318943]I'm guessing they don't see it as a duty derived from the bible but more as a moral duty to themselves. You know, like when you're, say, at the supermarket and you see an old lady trying to get something from the top shelf. In this case, sort of like 'that man is probably a good person, i'd hate to see him go to hell for this'.[/QUOTE] That logic would work if the bible didn't say pretty conclusively that it isn't your place to judge others