My Confession

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Between "free speech" and truth, the preference ought to go to truth. As has been evidenced, any ol' jackass can "free speech" until the cows come home and no one profits.

No, it should not. Truth is rarely attained instantly. In matters like spirituality, people can seek truth their whole lives, and yet they often completely disagree with one another on things.

Excessive censorship actually hinders the search for truth by stunting dialog. Under the guise of protecting 'truth', it protects only the opinion of the censor and those who think like him. If their position is false, then it cannot be challenged.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
What rankled me is the nerve, not the insult. He is some petty, inarticulate punk who is emboldened to throw pot shots strictly because of the anonymity afforded him by the medium. Were he face to face with anyone with an opposing view point, he wouldn't dare to spew such venom.

Some people would. You don't really know the guy well enough to say that.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
No, it should not. Truth is rarely attained instantly. In matters like spirituality, people can seek truth their whole lives, and yet they often completely disagree with one another on things.

Excessive censorship actually hinders the search for truth by stunting dialog. Under the guise of protecting 'truth', it protects only the opinion of the censor and those who think like him. If their position is false, then it cannot be challenged.

The truth that man needs in any given age has been and will continue to be readily available for all who seek it. It is not a progressive realization, as you insist. While man's individual understanding of the same is, indeed, evolving, it is not as a result of steel sharpening steel, so to speak.

According to what you've suggested, "free speech" is the highest and best that man can aspire to. Nothing in my post suggested censorship, let alone excessive censorship. Instead, I insist responsibility and professionalism ought to be the hallmarks of any meaningful dialogue. The context which inspired this conversation is anything but responsible, professional or meaningful. Nor could any reasonable person deem the same a category fitting of "free speech."

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Some people would. You don't really know the guy well enough to say that.

From the little that I have read of his mess, I know him well enough for my assessment to be deemed accurate.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
From the little that I have read of his mess, I know him well enough for my assessment to be deemed accurate.

You can judge someone's propensity for violence from reading their posts? Impressive.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The truth that man needs in any given age has been and will continue to be readily available for all who seek it. It is not a progressive realization, as you insist. While man's individual understanding of the same is, indeed, evolving, it is not as a result of steel sharpening steel, so to speak.

According to what you've suggested, "free speech" is t ...[text shortened]... ngful. Nor could any reasonable person deem the same a category fitting of "free speech."

According to what you've suggested, "free speech" is the highest and best that man can aspire to.

Not quite - rather, free speech is there to ensure that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The idea is not to miss out on valuable ideas just because they may happen to be controversial.

Nothing in my post suggested censorship, let alone excessive censorship. Instead, I insist responsibility and professionalism ought to be the hallmarks of any meaningful dialogue. The context which inspired this conversation is anything but responsible, professional or meaningful.

Well, you're entitled to rate things as you wish. So long as you're not actually advocating censorship, I have no issue with that.

Nor could any reasonable person deem the same a category fitting of "free speech."

The concept of Free speech is silent on the quality of what is said. All it means is the right to say what you wish without censorship. By placing what was said outside the category of free speech, you are necessarily advocating censorship.

Originally posted by vistesd
[/i]I would treat any degrading attitude toward women as being de facto misogynist, whether or not the person doing it claims to hate or love women.

I thought that the first instance I cited was mildly degrading in its use of the “she begged for it” stereotype. The second instance (seemingly unrelated to your opening post) was egregious; I ...[text shortened]... tive sexuality” camp; nor one that would be offended by the notion of Mary having an affair.][/b]

I thought that the first instance I cited was mildly degrading in its use of the “she begged for it” stereotype. The second instance (seemingly unrelated to your opening post) was egregious; I don’t know if you were going for “shock effect” or what, or what the point might’ve been.

what is degrading about 'begging for it'? thousands of men and woman around the world will be 'begging for it' at some point tonight. nothing new or exciting there. loosely using the world beg as i did it's natural to beg for sex. man says to wife 'ah come on' wife says no man say 'ah come on' and the cycle continues. the second instance you refer to is about the chinese girl i guess, i wouldn't say it showed a hatred to woman possibly more of a disrespect to woman. weather the prostitute would see if as disrespectful i don't know, after all she has voluntarily put her body up for sell. she is one of thousands of woman across the world that has went into prostitution, are you saying that everyone who has ever been to a prostitute is a misogynist? not having ever been or even spoken to a prostitute i wouldn't know how each party feels about it.

there was no higher reason behind that post, possibly just for the shock factor as you said. i actually thought the post would be deleted to be honest.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I'm not selling anything. He insulted the reputation of a person with a sterling reputation, a woman who epitomizes the very ideal of what a woman ought to aspire to be.
What rankled me is the nerve, not the insult. He is some petty, inarticulate punk who is emboldened to throw pot shots strictly because of the anonymity afforded him by the medium. Wer ...[text shortened]... he face to face with anyone with an opposing view point, he wouldn't dare to spew such venom.

this is the funniest thing i've ever heard. you really are a sad little man. not everything you believe to be true is believed by others and the people who you respect so much don't even exist in the eyes of others. you need to realize that.

christians are so predictable, you have no sense of humor when it comes to your religion, i can say whatever i want about buddha or allah but heaven forbid if i say anything about precious jesus or mary. pitiful. lighten up, your name calling is not going to work, it's not going to change the way i post or speak about christianity it just shows you up for the ignorant man that you are.

if i was face to face with someone like you not only would i 'spew such venom' i would add that little bit extra just to see the look on your face, what are you going to do then PUNK?

Originally posted by trev33
[b]I thought that the first instance I cited was mildly degrading in its use of the “she begged for it” stereotype. The second instance (seemingly unrelated to your opening post) was egregious; I don’t know if you were going for “shock effect” or what, or what the point might’ve been.

what is degrading about 'begging for it'? thousands of men and wo ...[text shortened]... shock factor as you said. i actually thought the post would be deleted to be honest.[/b]

…loosely using the world beg as i did it's natural to beg for sex.

It is? I’d suggest that says something about the nature of the relationship. I have frankly lived (in my youth) in the kind of relationship where that kind of sad behavior is present; and I have lived in the kind of relationship where it just isn’t.

You know why (in my opinion) people get so attracted to “soap operas”? Because the behavior they caricature represents the tragedy that many people live out. They are, in a sense, “true caricatures”.

Now, you were (I think) here trying to bust a certain kind of religious stereotype. In the process, I think you may have inadvertently supported another kind of tragic stereotype. (And the nature of your “defense” indicates that you at least understand what I am talking about.)

Why not use your obvious abilities to bust all stereotypes that box and bottle and belittle people? Men and women?

I withdraw my comments about “pathological misogyny”. I only ask that you consider my comments.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You can judge someone's propensity for violence from reading their posts? Impressive.

My assessment didn't say anything about his "propensity for violence." Instead, I said he was a potty-mouth tripe who insults and defames people (and concepts) of which he is ignorant. From a safe distance, at that.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
According to what you've suggested, "free speech" is the highest and best that man can aspire to.

Not quite - rather, free speech is there to ensure that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The idea is not to miss out on valuable ideas just because they may happen to be controversial.

Nothing in my post suggested censorship, l was said outside the category of free speech, you are necessarily advocating censorship.

Free speech, when tied to free opinion, does not cause any one any type of discernable harm. According to your broad brush, even hate speech ought to be tolerated.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
My assessment didn't say anything about his "propensity for violence." Instead, I said he was a potty-mouth tripe who insults and defames people (and concepts) of which he is ignorant. From a safe distance, at that.

You implied he'd be too scared to say such things to someone's face. Since you've been beating your chest at him (prior to flinging dung?) I imagine he'd need a propensity for violence (if only in defence) to speak that way to your face, since you certainly seem to have one. Unless all the chest-beating is hot air and you relish the sheer irony of your comments.

Do you think it's right to hit people for saying things that offend you? What if I drew an insulting cartoon ... ?

Originally posted by trev33
this is the funniest thing i've ever heard. you really are a sad little man. not everything you believe to be true is believed by others and the people who you respect so much don't even exist in the eyes of others. you need to realize that.

christians are so predictable, you have no sense of humor when it comes to your religion, i can say whatever i want ...[text shortened]... hat little bit extra just to see the look on your face, what are you going to do then PUNK?

this is the funniest thing i've ever heard.
Don't get out much, huh?

you really are a sad little man.
More melancholy than sad, really.

not everything you believe to be true is believed by others and the people who you respect so much don't even exist in the eyes of others. you need to realize that.
A universal belief is not required or expected by either me or God. Holding to a common thread of decency and professionalism, however, is not outside the bounds of reasonable expectation. If you truly hold to the preposterous idea that the historical figures written about in the various biblical accounts are somehow imaginary, well, your troubles go beyond simply being a gutter snipe.

i can say whatever i want about buddha or allah but heaven forbid if i say anything about precious jesus or mary.
Here's an idea: how about saying something true?

if i was face to face with someone like you not only would i 'spew such venom' i would add that little bit extra just to see the look on your face, what are you going to do then PUNK?
Fortunately--- for your sake--- you'll never get that opportunity. But you knew that going in, didn't you?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
You implied he'd be too scared to say such things to someone's face. Since you've been beating your chest at him (prior to flinging dung?) I imagine he'd need a propensity for violence (if only in defence) to speak that way to your face, since you certainly seem to have one. Unless all the chest-beating is hot air and you relish the sheer irony of your ...[text shortened]... to hit people for saying things that offend you? What if I drew an insulting cartoon ... ?

There are certain insults (in my opinion) which require responses.
Your convoluted arrival at your conclusion take far more effort than is reasonable. Feel free to draw whatever cartoons you wish.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
There are certain insults (in my opinion) which require responses.
Your convoluted arrival at your conclusion take far more effort than is reasonable. Feel free to draw whatever cartoons you wish.

It's a very straightforward conclusion.

If you want convolution, reread that old thread you posted 🙂