Random Politics & Religion #00
|
Random Politics & Religion #00
Prove me wrong women...prove me wrong !
Women prove men wrong on a daily basis. Just sayin'.
[+]
fonewear said: » Prove me wrong women...prove me wrong ! Don't you ever get tired of the same four trolling topics? :p Seraph.Ramyrez said: » I think it's very important to point out that frequently it's not "hating" the people themselves, it's frustration as to how people can hold such backward mindsets. Seraph.Ramyrez said: » Enter the age of robot companions for everyone then.
[+]
What can I say women are fascinating creatures you could say perfect contradictions !
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » So going on feels rather than facts is the way forward? Enter the age of robot companions for everyone then. Fone constantly plays on like three or four stereotypes to respond to nearly all posts and it stopped being funny a long time ago. And some of you keep perpetuating it by constantly encouraging it. How is that basing anything on "feels"? Edit: then again, the line between "joking" and "really just bitter toward women due to 'feels'" really starts to blur for some people around here...
[+]
Well all do our stereotypical posts. I bet you could predict what "x" users is going to reply to every single topic under the Sun.
[+]
As far as the topic of cartoons to offend Muslims. I don't believe in censoring something just because it offends someone. As far as I know Christian Jews Buddhists etc don't kill people that mock their religion. Basically the Muslims need to get a sense of humor.
[+]
fonewear said: » Well all do our stereotypical posts. I bet you could predict what "x" users is going to reply to every single topic under the Sun. Not what I mean. Knowing where someone stands on a topic isn't a stereotype in this context. Knowing that you'll respond with the same exaggerated stereotypical anti-Semitism, misogyny, HuffPo, or Hillary stuff is what I'm talking about. At least, I've always assumed it's exaggerated stereotyping because you think it's funny to troll with it. If you're actually serious then I know who the worst person on the forum is. Seraph.Ramyrez said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » So going on feels rather than facts is the way forward? Enter the age of robot companions for everyone then. Fone constantly plays on like three or four stereotypes to respond to nearly all posts and it stopped being funny a long time ago. And some of you keep perpetuating it by constantly encouraging it. How is that basing anything on "feels"?
[+]
What if I told you there is a fine line between satire and trolling !
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » So in a 'free' society hate speech is ok, along with hate speech on the hate speech? Why must hate be a facet for people to be 'free' ? What about the consequences of hate speech then?
[+]
The first amendment is only brought up when someone offends your sensibilities. Otherwise we forget it exists !
Old and busted: Holding women to the same standard. New hotness: Let em be a firefighter even if they can't pass the tests.
I guess we're giving up on the whole equal opportunity thing huh? While that is true, it's for protecting the people from the government, not individuals against each other.
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » it's for protecting the people from the government, not individuals against each other.
[+]
In theory, you could say the first two amendments allow for people to walk around with a bunch of loaded guns going on about how [insert label]s are taking over the country.
Well, what protection do we need from words? I mean "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me."
Words do no "physical" harm, and for slanderous lies we do have an extensive and expensive court system, which I'd seemingly much more prefer than not being able to speak. Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Well, what protection do we need from words? I mean "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Words do no "physical" harm, and for slanderous lies we do have an extensive and expensive court system, which I'd seemingly much more prefer than not being able to speak. but some words hurt my feelings
[+]
volkom said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Well, what protection do we need from words? I mean "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Words do no "physical" harm, and for slanderous lies we do have an extensive and expensive court system, which I'd seemingly much more prefer than not being able to speak. but some words hurt my feelings Easy fix stop feeling ! Ragnarok.Nausi said: » Well, what protection do we need from words? I mean "sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Words do no "physical" harm, and for slanderous lies we do have an extensive and expensive court system, which I'd seemingly much more prefer than not being able to speak. There's plenty of non-protected speech for good reason, hate speech, threats, speech that inflicts undue emotional harm, speech that inflicts physical harm (shouting fire in a crowded theatre), etc. That said, I don't think we need to legislate every damn thing, and people should have the sense to draw the line without a the threat of jail time. The words "undue emotional harm" I picture radical feminists spending hours a day to find misogynistic words...then writing articles about them on Jezebel !
fonewear said: » The words "undue emotional harm" I picture radical feminists spending hours a day to find misogynistic words...then writing articles about them on Jezebel ! It means abuse, not just calling someone a jerk when they get in front of you in the checkout line. So when people complain on how ineffective and inefficient the government is and how convoluted the courts are, you can say it's working as intended.
[+]
How the hell can anyone define something so vague as "emotional harm" ? That could literally be millions of different things.
[+]
You guys are causing me undue emotional harm.
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: » You guys are causing me undue emotional harm. Quick to a cheap attorney and some time air time on MSNBC !
[+]
fonewear said: » How the hell can anyone define something so vague as "emotional harm" ? That could literally be millions of different things. I don't know the actual wording of the court decision, I'd imagine it could be interpreted pretty widely, yeah. But, people do use speech with the intent to cause emotional harm, I don't see why it is any less harmful than physical. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » So when people complain on how ineffective and inefficient the government is and how convoluted the courts are, you can say it's working as intended. |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.