1 2 3 4 5 6
Let us try for context and analogy.
I personally find smoking to be an utterly abominable practice that I have absolutely no attraction to. Alexa seems to feel the same way about homosexuality. She has a personal aversion to it; I have a personal aversion to smoking.
I probably dislike the idea of smoking more than Alexa dislikes the idea of homosexuality. At the same time I would not try to force people not to smoke. And neither would Alexa force people to be straight.
Granted, smoking is an addictive habit, and homosexuality is almost certainly genetic, but lets leave that out for now. I do know that the comparison is not actually entirely apt.
The place where, to my mind, Alexa is wrong is when she categorised homosexuality as being done simply for shock value. Her other statements are entirely her own value judgements, which she is entirely entitled to. The comment on homosexuality being only for the shock value is more fact based and can be directly investigated.
Even if one does not believe homosexuality to be genetic it does not follow that it is done purely for shock value. I don't assume that smokers smoke just for shock value or to annoy me. I think it far more likely that they do so because they enjoy it and because they are addicted to it. One can say something similar for homosexuality.
Certain homosexual activities are done for shock value. Gay Pride events, like parades, are often heavily about shock value. To raise awareness that the gay community is present and worth considering. I don't go to those as they tend to get a tad bit vulgar for me. But I wouldn't stop people from going.
Overall, Alexa may have been trolling, but her opinions should be respected as just that. You can attack opinion with opinion, but we should at least be civil about it. "I don't agree" is probably the only valid response to most of what she said. Otherwise we could argue ethics and their foundations.
9/26/2011 11:53:01 AM
I didn`t know I didn`t exist! I`m the invisible (Bi) Man!
9/27/2011 1:56:14 AM
Jezebel's Evil Sister
Wouldn't a bi guy be only half invisible?
9/27/2011 5:18:30 AM
@ Jezebel's Evil Sister
I think so, but which half?!
9/27/2011 5:30:43 AM
"Edited to add: Randomly
bolding words and sentences
doesn't add credence
to your argument"
Nor does it to yours. [/Spartan Laconic Wit] [/smartarse]
As a straight man, LGBT people, their increasing law-based equality in society, and their emergent culture & popularity (especially in media) has affected my personal living situation, and lifestyle as a whole exactly this much:
So what's your problem with them, then? Methinks the lady doth project too much. Oh, and remember: Denial. It's not a river in Egypt.
PROTIP: Homophobia = closet case:
The prosecution rests, m'lud.
"I didn't say I hated homosexuals"
"Personally I view homosexuality as depravity for the sake of depravity."
Still, the fact that those he had sex with were of the opposite gender, so that makes it all right, doesn't it eh, Alexa? [/hyper-sarcasm]. Do you want to say 'I love the smell of arguments blated out of the space-time continuum in the morning. Smells like... victory.', or shall I?
"Far be it from me to tell someone what they can and cannot do with another adult capable of giving consent"
So what's your problem? I refer you to what I said above, re. yours truly. What you're saying here is essentially the equivalent of 'I'm not racist, but...'. Thus you've destroyed your own argument, no less.
"but it just seems to me that the whole thing is just the human equivalent of pigs revelling in slop. A systematic challenge to ourselves as people to see who can debase our species as fragrantly as possible"
See above, re. Tony Alamo. Also...:
Fact: most paedophiles are heterosexual.
"It's disgusting, it's abnormal, and it's done purely for shock value."
As is trolling, dearie. [/smartarse II] Speaking as a straight man, I don't think homosexuality is disgusting, nor do I consider homosexuality to be done purely for shock value. Especially considering that infinitely worse acts are committed by heterosexuals. Like I say: methinks the lady doth project too much.
...oh, and what, pray, is wrong, re. bolding? Oh, and nice swerve there; you're the intellectual equivalent of Pele, with the way you dodged & swerved round the issue. Bravo. Non-sequitur, re. the argument & point in hand, much? Purely because you know you've already lost said argument.
If there actually was an argument in the first place, and you merely trolling, just for disgusting shock value. Like I said in my previous comment, 'Opinions are like arses. Everyone has one, but not everyone wants to air theirs in public. They certainly don't want yours shoved in their faces.'
Words to live by. Two words: Tact. Diplomacy.
You're such a loss to the diplomatic corps, Alexa. [/hyper-sarcasm]
Frankly, it would be best for you to simply admit defeat and acknowledge that you've lost the argument. Trust me, as these examples prove...:
...actual fundies have tried their best against my argument annihilation abilities, and have failed. You are even less of an intellectual challenge.
...oh and in b4 'tl;dr' and/or 'fag'/'faggot', 'U Mad', 'No U', 'You're trying too hard' [/4chan] & 'lol i trol u' etc. Just to further destroy your argument, certainly any further avoiding of the issue by you. But then by now, any reply by you, other than admitting that you - and your 'opinion(s)' - is/are wrong, and conceding that homosexuality isn't 'disgusting' and not done purely for 'shock value' etc, is in itself conceding the point.
9/27/2011 8:57:55 AM
Alexa seemed to have only two assertions of fact. 1) You aren't addressing Linda Harvey's arguments and 2) Homosexuality is only done for shock value.
1) Is wrong because stating that homosexuals don't exist is easily disproved. Unless Linda Harvey only meant that homosexuality is a choice and not genetic, in which case she was just having trouble communicating her reason.
2) When it comes right down to it, this can be tested. And I find it unlikely that results will back Alexa up.
The rest of her assertions, such as "Personally I view homosexuality as depravity for the sake of depravity", are opinion. Her opinion. As such, Anon, she doesn't have to argue them and she isn't. Opinion can be stated.
She doesn't like homosexual behaviour? I don't like the act of smoking. Keep it away from me, it is disgusting.
"'I'm not racist, but...'. Thus you've destroyed your own argument, no less."
-No, she didn't say this. She said 'I don't like homosexuality, I think its disgusting, but I'm not going to force people to be straight.' It isn't an argument.
She admits homophobia, but isn't going to try to force people to be straight.
In all honesty, she has every right to hold that opinion, so long as she doesn't try to forcibly convert people. She also has the right to say it, if she wishes.
9/27/2011 10:41:10 AM
Jezebel's Evil Sister
@ Canuovea ~
No one ever said Alexa doesn't have a right to express her opinion. She has as much right as all the fundies that are quoted on this website.
In turn, we all have a right to express opinions on her opinion, just as we comment on the religious fundies' opinions. It's called free speech and it's what this site is all about.
9/27/2011 11:33:16 AM
Jezebel's Evil Sister,
Of course, of course. I'm of the opinion that Alexa's opinion is... silly.
But at the same time, her opinion isn't an argument. Attacking her statements as such isn't going to accomplish anything. Anon was doing just that.
Nor is civility actually a requirement. It just gets more done. I'd prefer to ask why Alexa feels as she does about homosexuals, then take it from there as an examination of ethics and principles. That might do some good as well as allow an argument instead of just spread animosity.
Then again, bashing is fun!
9/27/2011 12:36:10 PM
And when the likes of Alexa come out with unjustifiable 'opinions', they should expect to be called out on such.
And to have said 'opinions' annihilated.
'Opinions' like those put forward by Alexa = arguments.
And arguments like Alexa's deserve to be annihilated
Alexa's 'opinion' here = 'I'm not homophobic, but...'
'I'm not homophobic, but' = 'I'm not racist, but...'
Where does it end, before such unjustifiable 'opinions' become political policy? In Hitler's 'opinion', Jews were responsible for all the world's ills. [/Godwin]
Such 'opinions' have no
right to exist. Hundreds of thousands of good people sacrificed their own existences in WWII, to ensure such 'opinions' were never allowed to come to their ultimate fruition. I refer you to my second comment on the previous page.
Having your country bombed by the Luftwaffe/V-1s/V-2s etc some 60-70 years ago does that to you. I wonder if the KKK would have the same attitude if Hitler's Kriegsmarine had attacked, say, New York, instead of the Japanese in Pearl Harbour...?
The US certainly annihilated Osama bin Lardarse's 'opinions' a few months ago.
Moral: The bad winter we in the UK experienced last year, had me wishing that winter never existed. There's light years of difference between disgusting cold weather, and the completely legal actions between two adult, consenting men (in private. 'Pride parades'? Is there a gun pointing at your head, forcing you to be there?!).
Choosing between wishing the nonexistence of just one of those. That is the question...!
Via your own self-admitted 'I'm not homophobic, but...' attitude:
"I didn't say I hated homosexuals"
"It's disgusting, it's abnormal"
"Personally I view homosexuality as depravity for the sake of depravity."
You've destroyed your own argument. Thus:
9/28/2011 7:32:35 AM
turn off the filter on google images, and i'm sure you can find some counter-evidence.
9/28/2011 8:31:06 AM
The justification for those of Alexa's opinions that are not based in observable reality is her moral perspective.
She thinks gays are disgusting. The only way you could obliterate that opinion is through a thorough ethical debate. This would be difficult because there is a high degree of subjectivity to morality.
Nor are those opinions arguments. An argument presents logical reasoning to make a point and can be challenged via logical reasoning. An opinion is an assertion that can also, sometimes, be challenged via logic and empirical observation. Ethical assertions, are a more difficult affair.
Alexa's position IS: "I AM homophobic because..."
Saying that she is claiming to not be homophobic is putting words into her mouth. Her later back peddling about not hating homosexuals is essentially irrelevant. She may not "hate" them, per se, but she does find them "disgusting", which, while not hate, is still a kind of homophobia.
Re-Hitler and WW2... Hitler's opinions vis a vis the Jews and race theory were based on easily falsifiable observable notions. The connection is not quite on par with Alexa's ethical opinions.
"The US certainly annihilated Osama bin Lardarse's 'opinions' a few months ago." - Irrelevant, and might doesn't make right.
Re. The issue of legality, consent, and privacy... yes, that is true, but law isn't the best way to understand morality. I have no ethical issues with Homosexuality in any respect... but that doesn't mean I can ignore as fools those who disagree. Still, Alexa states that it isn't her business to force people to be straight. You two agree on something.
9/28/2011 12:16:17 PM
@Canuovea, (and Alexa, if she ever comes back)
Personally I view homosexuality as depravity for the sake of depravity. " "A systematic challenge to ourselves as people to see who can debase our species as fragrantly as possible. It's disgusting, it's abnormal, and it's done purely for shock value." are statements regarding facts. They are assertions regarding the motivations of homosexuals and the origins of homosexual behavior. Therefore, the defense that it is a matter of opinion ins invalid, as there are vast bodies of evidence demonstrating that the facts are different to what Alexa claims them to be. As the immortal saying goes, "Everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." In situations where there are facts to be had, opinion becomes largely irrelevant.
9/28/2011 4:26:38 PM
Yes, the part about it being "depravity for the sake of depravity" is very much so fact based. I had missed that.
However, the fact that she sees it as "debasing the species," for instance, isn't based on observable facts. Same with it being "disgusting, abnormal". Those aren't observable fact based, but her opinion.
9/28/2011 5:04:02 PM
Couldn't have put it better myself. Alexa here should have just stopped at:
'I didn't say I hated homosexuals'
Then she would have emerged with some semblance of credibility still intact. But no. She then had to keep digging her own FAIL grave even deeper.
My opinion? I have no problem whatsoever with LGBT people in any way, shape or form. Displays of affection in public? Fine (as with those of straight couples). 'Pride parades'? Great displays of LGBT culture, and more power to them, says I.
See? An opinion that isn't
guaranteed to induce & inflame outrage. As in 'starting an argument
'. Because LGBT people affect me personally, exactly this much:
Fred Phelps & co., take note. This means you too, Alexa. The only possible way you can leave that argumental corner you've painted yourself into, is to admit that - like me - LGBT people affect you this much: Zero; thus your 'opinion' about them is wrong, and that homosexuality isn't disgusting, nor is what they do purely for 'shock value', and openly admit that your saying such is disgusting & purely for shock value. As in trolling.
Now why can't Rush Limburger, Mike 'Savage' Weiner, Batscat Shelly, Mike Fuckabee, Sarah Failin et al have similar opinions? Especially when 'preaching to the converted'. It wouldn't kill them. Just as it wouldn't kill them to be left-wing, Atheist, and Politically Correct. As in Tolerant.
Hitler was a Right-winger. Also a Christian. [/Reverse-Godwin]
He hated homosexuals, and wished they were nonexistent too. Would it have killed him to be like Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela? Left-wing, Pro-Semitic, Pro-Choice, Pro-Democracy, and hyper-tolerant?
9/29/2011 8:11:45 AM
Just because an opinion creates outrage doesn't mean it is an argument. Again, an argument is a logical argument. An assertion is not an argument by itself.
As for LGBT people and their effects... I think you've got it the wrong way around. I have no problems with the LGBT community or their individual members, leastways not as far as sexuality goes.
Therefore, the net effect they have on me is, also, zero.
This is not the case with Alexa. She finds their specific sexuality disgusting (for whatever reason, she does, you can't tell her she doesn't). Therefore, they do effect her, by making her feel disgusted.
The fault isn't with the LGBT community, of course, but with her own view on morality. Thing is, she doesn't see it as a fault, and you haven't even tried to show that. Instead of moving the conversation to an ethical level where such concerns are addressed you've just bashed her. It just isn't effective.
And if she was just trolling; she failed. Not everyone is running about in blind rage and panic like chickens with their heads cut off.
Finally, there are plenty of great people who were: right wing, religious, politically incorrect, and more or less tolerant (yes, tolerant at the same time!).
And reverse Godwin is still a bad idea. First off, we don't actually know what Hitler's personal beliefs were. He did use Christianity, but whether he believed it or not... well. Let me just say that I don't take Hitler's word for it.
You might be wondering why I'm bothering to defend Alexa. First: I hate it when people attack someone for the wrong reasons. She can be legitimately attacked, but not on the level that is being done. Two: She at least doesn't believe in forcing people to be like her. People are different, and differences should be at least respected. To a degree.
9/29/2011 11:05:15 AM
"First: I hate it when people attack someone for the wrong reasons. She can be legitimately attacked, but not on the level that is being done. Two: She at least doesn't believe in forcing people to be like her. People are different, and differences should be at least respected. To a degree."
'I don't do diplomacy'
...you were saying?
9/30/2011 9:59:47 AM
What does Rumsfeld and this TCH person have to do with Alexa's viewpoint?
"Far be it from me to tell someone what they can and cannot do with another adult capable of giving consent,"
That doesn't seem to be a position held by extreme right wing Christian fundamentalists.
In fact, according to her, Alexa is an atheist.
"I'm an atheist, but an atheist without a dogma."
Without dogma, she says. Whatever that means. The point is, the comparison to Rumsfeld et all seems to fail.
Also, attacking people (as opposed to ideas or opinions) makes us just as bad some of those other fundies. Though I'm the first to admit that sometimes attacking someone is warranted, but that is rare.
Here is how I would have tried to respond: Alright Alexa, I disagree with the notion that homosexuality is disgusting. I'm curious as to why you hold this view? Care to explain? Furthermore,there is evidence of homosexuality in the animal world, making it not entirely "abnormal". I also doubt any evidence of it being "done purely for shock value." Why is this act apparently "depravity?"
This is an attempt to bring the conversation onto a moral level, where her moral opinions can be scrutinized and attacked better. Should she respond in a crazy, hateful, way, then we can probably just write her off as a bigot. She also might just not want to talk about it.
Either way, attack the opinions. More gets done.
9/30/2011 3:21:12 PM
I don't believe Linda Harvey's brain exists.
9/30/2011 11:11:12 PM
"attack the opinions. More gets done."
So 'opinions' just appear out of nowhere, as if by magic? Bullets don't kill people, guns loaded with bullets by people kill people.
Fred Phelps & co. Just sayin' ~_^
...oh, and Nelson Mandela once was of the opinion that South Africa's system of oppression via Apartheid could be changed by violence. A leopard can change it's spots.*
Fundies can be 'deprogrammed'. I've seen the process & results for myself. It's not a pretty sight, but it's possible. Just as it's not impossible for an unjustifiable homophobe to change their unjustifiable 'opinion'.
Attack the source
of the 'opinions'. Destroy their 'logic'. Prove them & their 'opinion' wrong
in every way. Show them how their 'opinion' is inferior to that of the larger, evolving, more superior - and acceptable, nay Politically Correct
social paradigm. Via hyper-draconian legislation, if necessary (like I say: OFCOM. Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Not
having a US-style Constitution hasn't done the UK any harm at all); Zero Tolerance against Hate Speech/Crimes. One word: Thoughtcrime. Infinitely more gets done.
Anti-bigotry thoughtcrime laws wouldn't kill the US. Just the bigots' 'opinions'. Fred Phelps & co. being forced to have on their placards 'God loves Gays'. It wouldn't kill them. PROTIP: Gays were killed in Nazi Germany just for existing.
*- Kevin Day:
'In the 1970s, he was briefly a member of the racist political party the National Front.
He says it took the death of his black friend Richard Campbell in Police custody in 1980 to "make the scales quickly fall from my eyes."
He then became a left-wing activist
, using his previous experience in his 1993 Edinburgh Fringe show I Was A Teenage Racist'
Q.E. and D.
Destroy the source
of the unjustifiable 'opinion': their thinking.
Either via the individual seeing how unjustifiable their own thinking is - or via others showing them how unjustifiable said thinking that such 'opinions' are based on, and logically & argumentally annihilate
it, proving that such thinking can never justify it's existence.
See, Rush Limburger? Kevin Day could - by dint of his own critical thinking
faculties - become left
-wing. It wouldn't kill you to do the same.
Just as it wouldn't have killed Hitler to be exactly like Gandhi. And he succeeded with India, where Hitler ultimately failed with Germany.
10/4/2011 9:30:06 AM
"...oh, and Nelson Mandela once was... A leopard can change it's spots."
I'm not arguing for a live and let live policy here Anon. I agree "A leopard can change its spots."
"Fundies can be 'deprogrammed'.... it's not impossible for an unjustifiable homophobe to change their unjustifiable 'opinion'."
"Attack the source of the 'opinions'. Destroy their 'logic'. Prove them & their 'opinion' wrong in every way..."
Absolutely. But it goes deeper than that. In the case of ethics, you have to engage them on an ethical level. Going "nah nah, you're a bigot!" doesn't cut it. While maybe you attempted to engage Alexa on an ethical level, by looking at why she thinks the way she does and showing it to be wrong, I didn't see it.
"Via hyper-draconian legislation, if necessary... Zero Tolerance against Hate Speech/Crimes. One word: Thoughtcrime."
NO! For several reasons. One, you attract more flies with honey than vinegar. Two, that would encourage them and their persecution complex; you would be aiding them!
But mainly, Three: Thought is never, ever, a crime. Isn't that one of the main complaints atheists level against Christianity? Making what people think illegal makes you just as bad as them. The very concept of it is abhorrent to me.
"Anti-bigotry thoughtcrime laws wouldn't kill the US. Just the bigots' 'opinions'. Fred Phelps & co...It wouldn't kill them."
...This makes you the moral equivalent of those who force their beliefs on others. There is little that is more abhorrent than that.
You can't destroy their thinking, you can change it. But not by force. The Soviets tried that, the Nazis tried it, the McCarthists tried it... and we don't like any of them.
"Kevin Day could - by dint of his own critical thinking faculties - become left-wing. It wouldn't kill you to do the same."
PROTIP: Don't assume things about people. I am far from right wing.
10/4/2011 2:10:29 PM
'Anti-bigotry thoughtcrime laws wouldn't kill the US. Just the bigots' 'opinions'. Fred Phelps & co...It wouldn't kill them.'
"...This makes you the moral equivalent of those who force their beliefs on others. There is little that is more abhorrent than that."
I refer you to the comment by The Lazy One.
...you were saying? Four words which wouldn't kill fundies like those quoted above: 'Live and let live'
Do the names Timothy McVeigh, Scott Roeder, and Anders Breivik ring any bells? There's just one difference between them, and aforementioned quoted fundies, and it's summed up in a word:
Now you know why Section 5 of the Public Order Act exists here in the UK. Also why - post-Dunblane - guns were banned here too.
If it takes hyper-draconian laws to ensure that fundies arent allowed to say, never mind act upon their insane way of thinking in my country, good.
The rest of the civilised world, take note. Hitler was a right-winger too.
'Kevin Day could - by dint of his own critical thinking faculties - become left-wing. It wouldn't kill you to do the same.'
"PROTIP: Don't assume things about people. I am far from right wing."
And you falsely presume that I was talking about you, when I was referring to Rush Limburger & his ilk:
'See, Rush Limburger
? Kevin Day could - by dint of his own critical thinking faculties - become left-wing. It wouldn't kill you to do the same.
Now care to point out where 'Canuovea' is in the above?
The phrase 'Assume. Where you make an ASS out of U but not ME' exists for a reason.
...just sayin'. ~_^
10/5/2011 9:31:57 AM
First off, you used the pronoun "you" when addressing Rush Limbaugh. Since we were having a discussion, assuming the "you" was referring to myself was an understandable error.
About Hal Turner or agent0060... are you saying they wouldn't, like you, pass draconian legislation to enforce their will if they could? They would. They just don't care for the edicts of the state if it goes against their beliefs. That doesn't mean they wouldn't use the state. Desire to force others to believe as you do without use of reason is an example of extremism.
Anon, you aren't arguing that we should all go out and beat up the Christian right wingers, true. You are arguing that going and making laws the persecute Christian right wingers is good (or am I wrong?). Now, does that sound like a fatwa? Maybe, maybe not. But it does sound extremist.
As for Brevik and Co... yes, in a sense. But thoughts are not actions. You cannot have thought police, or thought crimes, or you are just like Iran, with their morality police and moral crimes.
What is the difference between the Iranian clerics, Stalin, etc and those who want to make thought a crime?
As for "Section 5 of the Public Order Act", sounds like it doesn't tell you what not to think, just how to act and what not to say in public. Still worries me, I like my freedom of speech, but it isn't what you were suggesting.
Also the UK uses organic statues, and no entrenched constitution. It could reverse Section 5 of the Public Order Act at any time.
As for Hitler... he was totalitarian. He had some leftist policies (ex: Strength through Joy Movement) and some rightist policies (ex: focus on elites and industry)... You can't just drop him in any one place and say "Well, they're bad too!" A reverse Godwin still suffers from the same problems as regular Godwin.
10/5/2011 12:42:08 PM
As I always say, 'With rights come responsibilities'. One of those responsibilities is to think before you think before speaking. Two words: Tact. Diplomacy.
If the likes of Kennedy & Khrushchev gave full flow to their 'opinions' during the Cuban Missile Crisis, we wouldn't be having this conversation several decades later from then.
Words can kill. Yet, on the other hand, words can prevent harm from coming to pass. Physically, psychologically, or politically; certainly how the latter can be influential to others.
'Jaw-jaw, not war-war.'
Speaking of the above, despite the 'opinions' of Hitler, and how such influenced other, forwarding his own agenda, Churchill's predecessor Neville Chamberlain allowed Hitler free reign with his 'opinions', and their effects.
The rest is history.
Churchill realised Hitler's 'opinions' - and how such influenced others - had no right to exist, and had to be dealt with. So what's the difference between his declaring war with Hitler, and Section 5 of the Public Order Act (and our police's Zero Tolerance policy against Hate Crimes/Speech)? You tell me.
Hopefully, you'll see my point. Muammar Gaddafi is now realising that only too well. Saddam Insane didn't, and look what happened to him? Kim Jong-il, take note. Two words: Nelson Mandela.
A leopard can change it's spots. Rush Limburger can become left-wing. Sarah Failin can become an Atheist (just as ex-athlete & ex-long time Christian Jonathan Edwards can). Unjustifiable 'opinions' can be thought-filtered before spoken, realising the influential repercussions of such before being spoken. The mindset of the individual can be changed, by such being proven to be wrong. It wouldn't kill said individual to realise that they're wrong, until they can change such to become right. As in Politically Correct.
And what is the basis of politics? Tact. Diplomacy. It's the reason why the UK and Portugal's alliance is the longest of any two countries. The 'Special Relationship' (UK & USA). Why USA & USSR didn't go to full-on Defcon-1 nuclear armageddon, during the aforementioned Cuban Missile Crisis.
Because someone admitted that they - and their socio-political 'opinion' - were wrong. It didn't kill them. And thank fuck for that, I'm sure you'll agree.
10/6/2011 9:28:59 AM
With rights come responsibilities...
Yes and no. You now have the freedom to say things, including outrageous things... but being an insulting, derogatory pig isn't disallowed, in the US anyway. But freedom of speech means that you are responsible for what you say.
In any case, those responsibilities in the US, aren't enforceable by law. Public opinion, yes, but... This means the rights are absolute.
Remember those Westboro Baptist Church nutters? Well... they had been taken to the Supreme Court of the US, who ruled they were allowed to say the things they were saying... despite the emotional damage it could do. I don't exactly agree with this, but it shows the nature of some rights.
As far as tact and diplomacy go... they aren't a responsibility, per se, just common courtesy and common sense. It is also a method of self preservation, as it was in the CMC.
I agree that words can cause harm... but "oh, I disagree! Boo hoo!" Isn't harm.
The differences between declaring war and S5POA are obvious. War was to preserve Britain from an outside threat that wished to annihilate it as a power. S5POA is to protect the sensitive public (which is fair enough, that is Britain's prerogative, it just rubs me the wrong way). Mainly, though, Hitler was causing direct harm and putting his ideology into practice. Action. S5POA targets words and speech which is not a direct action of harm. It can be harmful, but not in the same way.
What you suggest is even more radical. You want to outlaw thoughts. There is nothing diplomatic about that. Nor about screaming at people to change their mind.
I'll admit that not everyone is open to reason, this is fair, but at least give them the benefit of the doubt first and try to engage them reasonably. Even if they don't, you can't force them at gunpoint to adopt atheism, or left wing ideology.
Furthermore, you displayed neither tact nor diplomacy in engaging Alexa.
10/6/2011 8:03:06 PM
And, because my above comment was too long I'll cover a bit of the CMC here.
The Cuban Missile Crisis ended the way it did not because one side admitted error. It ended the way it did because neither side wanted to risk the potential cost of nuclear war. In fact, both sides sort of got what they wanted. Kennedy got the Soviet missiles out of Cuba, and Khrushchev got a guarantee that the USA would not invade Cuba. In fact, looking at baselines, Khrushchev won.
I just want to remind you to read my post above too... I tend to go on too long for the spam filter.
10/6/2011 8:08:16 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6