Page 7 of 8 [ 115 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 607

06 May 2021, 5:02 pm

My predicition

uncommondenominator wrote:
I don't anticipate you actually taking the time to address any of these glaring inconsistencies. I expect you'll find some tiny little molehill to inflate into a mountain, so you can avoid addressing anything of substance.


Your reaction

VegetableMan wrote:
You still haven't shown where I said you don't have the right to not tolerate intolerable speech. You're conflating two different issues. By any chance, can you tell me what those are? I doubt it.


Amazing! A tiny pedantic over-inflated point, and an avoidance of answering anything whatsoever.

I notice you keep changing the phraseology of the thing you say you didn't say.

In the first round you said, "I never said anyone should tolerate the intolerant" - but now it's double-negatives-gone-wild with "show where I said you don't have the right to not tolerate intolerable speech" - so I guess this is a game of "if it's not a verbatim exact quote, you can't quote me, and therefore are wrong! Me am clevur!"

Also, I DID show you where you said that, you just ignored it and skated right past it so you could just SAY that I didn't. However...

VegetableMan wrote:
I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not.

The only antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.


How does that NOT mean that you expect people to tolerate opinions they do not find "palatable"? Sure, you've sanitized the word "intolerant" into "not palatable", but what's the difference? No, you didn't say the exact words you keep changing around AND expecting me to quote, but I don't see the difference between these combinations of statements and the statement you're so desperately running from.

Maybe let's pretend that I DID show you where you said that, and now it's YOUR turn to answer a question, and tell me how that's actually any different in result.

Can YOU tell me what two things I'm supposedly conflating, and explain in any level of detail how I am doing so? Probably not. Are you basically just saying "guess what number I'm thinking of" with the intention of saying I'm wrong no matter what number I guess? Probably. Prove me wrong. Spare me the guessing games and use some of that free speech you claim is ever so important. Regale us with the nature of my error. I bet you won't. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - prove it, without the kiddie games - "GuEsS wHaT yOu DiD wRoNg!! !" Grow up and just say it.

FREE SPEECH ABSOLUTIST! has ABSOLUTELY! nothing to say, and answers questions with questions. Accuses other people of dodging a single question while utterly avoiding the hordes of questions they leave unanswered. Seems like the free speech ABSOLUTIST is the one using their free speech the LEAST, and doing as little talking as possible. Which seems weird since

VegetableMan wrote:
We should all try to listen to other's point of view. It will make for a better environment for discussing these issues.


Unless of course

VegetableMan wrote:
I don't agree with it.


In which case

VegetableMan wrote:
I know now not to engage in conversation with you any longer. Have a nice life!


Go ahead, squeak and squawk about how I didn't "show you where you said that" constantly-changing quote again. I'm sure THIS time It'll really put me in muh place :wink:



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,383
Location: Illinois

06 May 2021, 6:12 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
My predicition

uncommondenominator wrote:
I don't anticipate you actually taking the time to address any of these glaring inconsistencies. I expect you'll find some tiny little molehill to inflate into a mountain, so you can avoid addressing anything of substance.


Your reaction

VegetableMan wrote:
You still haven't shown where I said you don't have the right to not tolerate intolerable speech. You're conflating two different issues. By any chance, can you tell me what those are? I doubt it.


Amazing! A tiny pedantic over-inflated point, and an avoidance of answering anything whatsoever.

I notice you keep changing the phraseology of the thing you say you didn't say.

In the first round you said, "I never said anyone should tolerate the intolerant" - but now it's double-negatives-gone-wild with "show where I said you don't have the right to not tolerate intolerable speech" - so I guess this is a game of "if it's not a verbatim exact quote, you can't quote me, and therefore are wrong! Me am clevur!"

Also, I DID show you where you said that, you just ignored it and skated right past it so you could just SAY that I didn't. However...

VegetableMan wrote:
I do believe that everyone has the right to express their opinions, whether palatable to the masses or not.

The only antidote to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.


How does that NOT mean that you expect people to tolerate opinions they do not find "palatable"? Sure, you've sanitized the word "intolerant" into "not palatable", but what's the difference? No, you didn't say the exact words you keep changing around AND expecting me to quote, but I don't see the difference between these combinations of statements and the statement you're so desperately running from.

Maybe let's pretend that I DID show you where you said that, and now it's YOUR turn to answer a question, and tell me how that's actually any different in result.

Can YOU tell me what two things I'm supposedly conflating, and explain in any level of detail how I am doing so? Probably not. Are you basically just saying "guess what number I'm thinking of" with the intention of saying I'm wrong no matter what number I guess? Probably. Prove me wrong. Spare me the guessing games and use some of that free speech you claim is ever so important. Regale us with the nature of my error. I bet you won't. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - prove it, without the kiddie games - "GuEsS wHaT yOu DiD wRoNg!! !" Grow up and just say it.

FREE SPEECH ABSOLUTIST! has ABSOLUTELY! nothing to say, and answers questions with questions. Accuses other people of dodging a single question while utterly avoiding the hordes of questions they leave unanswered. Seems like the free speech ABSOLUTIST is the one using their free speech the LEAST, and doing as little talking as possible. Which seems weird since

VegetableMan wrote:
We should all try to listen to other's point of view. It will make for a better environment for discussing these issues.


Unless of course

VegetableMan wrote:
I don't agree with it.


In which case

VegetableMan wrote:
I know now not to engage in conversation with you any longer. Have a nice life!


Go ahead, squeak and squawk about how I didn't "show you where you said that" constantly-changing quote again. I'm sure THIS time It'll really put me in muh place :wink:


Not tolerating intolerant speech is not the same as advocating for censorship. (Jesus Christ! This is like having a debate with a child!)


_________________
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -- Jiddu Krisnamurti


Hollywood_Guy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Nov 2017
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,088
Location: US

06 May 2021, 6:30 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Everyone has friends with whom they disagree.

Have a crazy buddy who says racist, and antisemitic things while were watching the tube. Sometimes I will just respond to him by saying something like "YAVOLT! Mein Fuhrer".

I probably tolerate it from him more than from most because he IS rather crazy, and a troubled individual. But the point is that sometimes you can find some joking way to communicate disapproval with someone -without either disowning them, or without getting heavy and trying to reeducate them.


Is he on the spectrum or some other ND condition?



Hollywood_Guy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Nov 2017
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,088
Location: US

06 May 2021, 6:41 pm

Bradleigh wrote:
There is said to be a paradox, where the absolute tolerance of all things up to and including intolerance will itself be a form of intolerance, so that to stand for full tolerance you have to be intolerant to intolerance (which sounds like a jumble of words). There probably is best ways to go about it, but letting a bad opinion go unchallenged can only allow a pretty certain bad things to continue.


I think you can beat the "tough love" challenge into people with bad opinions and no government-related action or legislation is really needed. Even "bad" opinions here is pretty subjective.

I guess the paradox has only two solutions, either we make concessions of the principle idea of freedom of speech in society or we could break up our countries. In the second one the debate would be unnecessary if a person with say a racist opinion can associate freely with other racists and live under their own laws according, it wouldn't be an issue and I'd tolerate that as long as they tolerate other countries with different laws and opinion operating their according way.



Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,381
Location: Derby, UK

06 May 2021, 8:46 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Not tolerating intolerant speech is not the same as advocating for censorship.

I wasn't being intolerant towards you, though. I just said something you disagreed with, and you attempted to censor me by demanding an inappropriate Yes / No answer to a complicated question while also judging me for my stance. And when I refused to be bossed around, you flounced. Who is really being intolerant, there?

Now I appreciate that my supposed right to free speech doesn't necessarily mean anyone is forced to listen. Though it's safe to say that anyone speaking publicly must be hoping for some sort of audience, unless they're just trying to get an echo.

But saying "We should all try to listen to other's point of view. It will make for a better environment for discussing these issues" directly after completely failing to engage with me solely because we don't agree, smacks of rank hypocrisy.

The underlying issue here is that very often, people don't recognise when they are being intolerant. Intolerance is something that other people do, as a rule. In turn, that means when others refuse to tolerate your intolerance that you're oblivious to, you think their intolerance is unwarranted because they were being intolerate and you were not. Whether someone can be declared as irrational, argumentative or intolerant basically comes down to whether you think their argument is justifiable, which in turn largely rests on whether you agree with it or not.

"You can say what you like but only if I agree with it". Err no. If you honestly believe in complete freedom of speech then you have to accept that'll never be how it works. Left completely unchecked, our mass and social media would become a sea of shit-throwing monkeys. We're half way there already, because accountability is breaking down. It's impossible to sue every source of malicious BS now, even if you had the money. If you're unlucky enough to have the character assassination aimed at you personally, that can be life-changing or even life-ending.

If you don't want to deal with that, you do actually believe in censorship in certain circumstances, despite claiming not to.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 26,919
Location: temperate zone

06 May 2021, 9:47 pm

Hollywood_Guy wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Everyone has friends with whom they disagree.

Have a crazy buddy who says racist, and antisemitic things while were watching the tube. Sometimes I will just respond to him by saying something like "YAVOLT! Mein Fuhrer".

I probably tolerate it from him more than from most because he IS rather crazy, and a troubled individual. But the point is that sometimes you can find some joking way to communicate disapproval with someone -without either disowning them, or without getting heavy and trying to reeducate them.


Is he on the spectrum or some other ND condition?


He is not aspie/autistic as far as I know.

He is now diagnosed with "schizotypal personality disorder". Though he has had other diagnosis (20 years ago he was declared bipolar). And he is a drug using alcoholic (mostly on the wagon though now), from a violent drug using and alcoholic family.



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,383
Location: Illinois

06 May 2021, 10:01 pm

Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Not tolerating intolerant speech is not the same as advocating for censorship.

I wasn't being intolerant towards you, though. I just said something you disagreed with, and you attempted to censor me by demanding an inappropriate Yes / No answer to a complicated question while also judging me for my stance. And when I refused to be bossed around, you flounced. Who is really being intolerant, there?

Now I appreciate that my supposed right to free speech doesn't necessarily mean anyone is forced to listen. Though it's safe to say that anyone speaking publicly must be hoping for some sort of audience, unless they're just trying to get an echo.

But saying "We should all try to listen to other's point of view. It will make for a better environment for discussing these issues" directly after completely failing to engage with me solely because we don't agree, smacks of rank hypocrisy.

The underlying issue here is that very often, people don't recognise when they are being intolerant. Intolerance is something that other people do, as a rule. In turn, that means when others refuse to tolerate your intolerance that you're oblivious to, you think their intolerance is unwarranted because they were being intolerate and you were not. Whether someone can be declared as irrational, argumentative or intolerant basically comes down to whether you think their argument is justifiable, which in turn largely rests on whether you agree with it or not.

"You can say what you like but only if I agree with it". Err no. If you honestly believe in complete freedom of speech then you have to accept that'll never be how it works. Left completely unchecked, our mass and social media would become a sea of shit-throwing monkeys. We're half way there already, because accountability is breaking down. It's impossible to sue every source of malicious BS now, even if you had the money. If you're unlucky enough to have the character assassination aimed at you personally, that can be life-changing or even life-ending.

If you don't want to deal with that, you do actually believe in censorship in certain circumstances, despite claiming not to.


Yeah, I attempted to censor you with my line of questioning. You know. it's taking all of my willpower to not be overly derisive and sarcastic right now.

Wow! Just wow!


_________________
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -- Jiddu Krisnamurti


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 607

07 May 2021, 3:16 pm

VegetableMan wrote:

Not tolerating intolerant speech is not the same as advocating for censorship. (Jesus Christ! This is like having a debate with a child!)


How exactly does one "not tolerate" intolerant speech without engaging in some act that someone can claim is censorship? For the benefit of a poor ig'nant l'il child like me, please do explain this clearly complicated nuance, in clear adult language for all to understand. Please, do not horde this mystical insight to yourself - share your mighty wisdom, so that we may better understand your position, and learn from thy divine knowledge.

If by "having a debate with a child" you mean "being asked a ton of questions that you don't have the answers to", then sure. I'd go along with that. If you meant to imply that my behavior and understanding of the word is unsophisticated in the manner of an ignorant child, that's utterly laughable. Do you often struggle this much when debating children? Why do you debate children so much that it was an easy point of reference?

I'm mostly kidding, of course - I know you were just trying to get under my skin, since you don't have anything of substance to say. It's way easier to just say "that's a stupid question" than it is to actually answer questions. Especially if you don't have any answers to give.

Since you don't seem too inclined to talk, I'll pick up the slack. Sure, I can imagine a situation wherein one doesn't have to tolerate something but also doesn't engage in any form of censorship. It's called "be mad, but do nothing about it". It's a toothless statement. As much as it pretends to be fair, it still has one-sided expectations. If you disagree, use that big adult brain of yours, and explain why. Something more than "nuh-uh!", or "yOu aRgUe LiKe A cHiLd!" would be nice :wink:



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,383
Location: Illinois

07 May 2021, 7:43 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:

Not tolerating intolerant speech is not the same as advocating for censorship. (Jesus Christ! This is like having a debate with a child!)


How exactly does one "not tolerate" intolerant speech without engaging in some act that someone can claim is censorship?


By debunking it.


_________________
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -- Jiddu Krisnamurti


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 13,460
Location: I'm right here

07 May 2021, 7:45 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:

Not tolerating intolerant speech is not the same as advocating for censorship. (Jesus Christ! This is like having a debate with a child!)


How exactly does one "not tolerate" intolerant speech without engaging in some act that someone can claim is censorship?


By debunking it.


How does one debunk opinions? You can pick apart what underlays the opinion and the rationalizations used to defend it just change.


_________________
the problem with capitalism is that eventually you run out of other people's resources and cheap labour to exploit
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,383
Location: Illinois

07 May 2021, 7:56 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:

Not tolerating intolerant speech is not the same as advocating for censorship. (Jesus Christ! This is like having a debate with a child!)


How exactly does one "not tolerate" intolerant speech without engaging in some act that someone can claim is censorship?


By debunking it.


How does one debunk opinions? You can pick apart what underlays the opinion and the rationalizations used to defend it just change.


If I said to you that I believe the white race is superior to all other races, wouldn't you be able to debunk such nonsense?


_________________
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -- Jiddu Krisnamurti


Redd_Kross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 5 Jun 2020
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,381
Location: Derby, UK

07 May 2021, 8:46 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
Yeah, I attempted to censor you with my line of questioning. You know. it's taking all of my willpower to not be overly derisive and sarcastic right now.

Wow! Just wow!

Oh look, a meaningless reply.

Very Well Done Indeed.

I look forward to the derisive and sarcastic response where you stop pussyfooting around and say what you actually mean.

Even though this is a free speech thread, which means you could have said it in the first place if you weren't playing games.

Free speech is a paradox. It always will be. The more you try to dig your own trench the more that will become apparent.

But hey, good luck. Things are difficult right now, we all need a laugh.



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,383
Location: Illinois

08 May 2021, 8:27 am

Redd_Kross wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
Yeah, I attempted to censor you with my line of questioning. You know. it's taking all of my willpower to not be overly derisive and sarcastic right now.

Wow! Just wow!

Oh look, a meaningless reply.

Very Well Done Indeed.

I look forward to the derisive and sarcastic response where you stop pussyfooting around and say what you actually mean.

Even though this is a free speech thread, which means you could have said it in the first place if you weren't playing games.

Free speech is a paradox. It always will be. The more you try to dig your own trench the more that will become apparent.

But hey, good luck. Things are difficult right now, we all need a laugh.


Actually, I thought it was quite meaningful. Equating anything I've said in this thread to censorship is beyond preposterous.

Also, the idea that not tolerating speech must lead to censorship...well, beyond preposterous.

Limiting speech never leads to anything good, unless you think authoritarianism is good.


_________________
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -- Jiddu Krisnamurti


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,952

08 May 2021, 11:51 am



Obviously, If We Keep

Our Eyes Shut Around

Folks Who Can't See

They'll Have Find Their Way to See Blind...

Basically

It's What

We All Do Anyway...

If We Cannot Speak Our
Truths No One Will Hear...

If We Cannot Listen
To Lies That Won't

Change

Either...

Sticks And Stones
May Break my Bones

Yet You See i Have A Place For Words too...

Let's Face it, Not Everyone Is The Same; Some
Folks Break Down Over Words, No Different Than Sticks And Stones...

If We Are In an Interaction Where All Differences Are Discussed in Peace

That's Where

Change

Happens

Most Yet only

When Mature Human

Beings Are Present Fully Developed oh
How Rare That is When Humanity Becomes A Lost Art...

When Patience Is Reduced to A 'Candy Crush' Game at A Bus Stop of Life...

People Who Become Secure And Self-Authenticated Complete Won't Be Brought

Down By Words;

Yet How

Rare

That
Is Indeed 'These Days'...

Obviously, the 'Photos' Don't Lie...

And Obviously It's A Bit More Difficult When Speech Doesn't Go Away...

Unless One is Totally in Control of Regulating Their Emotions and Senses Now...

Back

to

Humanity 101...

And All the Bits And Bytes Now...

In 'A Society' of Do Least Harm

All Concerned Must Be Taken Into Consideration...

That's An Art And Never Ever A Science And or 'Religion' Alone;

A Practice of

Life and Love at Best...

Other than That Haha;
'Symbols On A Page' Don't Scare me...

Only Dead Shells on the Beach
When The Living Stuff i Master Is Within 'my SHell'...



_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


uncommondenominator
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2019
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 607

08 May 2021, 3:38 pm

VegetableMan wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:

Not tolerating intolerant speech is not the same as advocating for censorship. (Jesus Christ! This is like having a debate with a child!)


How exactly does one "not tolerate" intolerant speech without engaging in some act that someone can claim is censorship?


By debunking it.


How does one debunk opinions? You can pick apart what underlays the opinion and the rationalizations used to defend it just change.


If I said to you that I believe the white race is superior to all other races, wouldn't you be able to debunk such nonsense?


Sure is cool how you answer questions with questions.

Well gee mister, you sure make it sound easy to "debunk" things. And as clever an example as you think you've come up with, it really isn't. If the person responds with "yes" they can , then your simple solution of "dEbUnK iT!" gets a false sense of effectiveness. If they say "no" they can't, then you get to claim "WeLL yOu MuSt NoT Be VeRy GoOd ThEn!" or even "tHeN mAyBe YoU'Re WrOnG!" or similar.

Realistically, there is no "evidence" that is so compelling that it cannot be undermined by an outright denial. There is no source or statement of fact that cannot be claimed is a fake or a lie. There is no logic so flawless that it cannot be undermined by an outright denial. All that needs to be done is say something like "that's preposterous!" It completely side-steps all logic and reason. "No iT iSn'T!! !" And you say I'M like debating a child... :roll:

Just because you used a fancy word like "preposterous!" doesn't change the fundamental nature of the statement. "ThAtS sTuPiD! ThAtS sTuPiD! ThAtS sTuPiD!"

Nothing can "win" against "tHaTs StUpId!" Even if you pop in a monocle and say "My word! Ballyhoo and tomfoolery! That's preposterous!", it's still "tHaTs StUpId!"

The earth is round.

"ThAts StUpId!"

No, we know this from science. We've been to space and seen it.

"tHaTs StUpId!"

We've also done calculations based on light and shadows here on earth. Math confirms it.

"ThAtS StUpId! YoUrE sTuPiD. LOL DoNt Be So StUpId! EaRtH iS RoUnD, YeAh RiGhT! If EaRtH iS RoUnD hOw cOmE We DoNt fALl OfF tHe BoTtOm?!"

Because of gravity.

"OMG MaGiC cAlLeD GrAvItY LoL ThAtS So PREPOSTEROUS!"

Since you apparently argue with children, I'm surprised you've never encountered this while doing so. I'm surprised someone as wise and knowledgeable as you didn't already know this. Adults do this too. I'm surprised you didn't know that either.

"DeBuNk It!"

Right, like it's just that easy :roll:

I can quote Snopes all day long, "ThAtS JuSt a PrOpAgAnDa SiTe!"

Dr Faucci said... "I dOnT bElIeVe HiM!"

Most scientists believe... "ThEyVe bEeN pAiD tO sAy tHaT!"

We've known for a while now that... "ThAtS JuSt wHaT THEY wAnT yOu To BeLiEvE!"

"DeBuNk It!" In other words, calmly explain to the bully why they should stop bullying, and hope you're compelling, but don't actually DO anything about it. Toothless.

"DeBuNk It" just becomes "express your easily dismissible disapproval" at that point. "Tell me why you disagree. See? I let you speak. Free speech! Still gong to ignore and deny everything you said, but I let you say it, so free speech for you too! I still get my way though, and you have to accept it. But you got to express your disapproval of it, so it's totally fair! I get to act however I want, and you get to say you don't like it! FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE!"

So far you seem to have three response categories. Answering a question with another question, dismissing a question outright rather than addressing the substance of it, and short vague meaningless E-Z non-answers that either harp on minor pedantic details or offer as much substance as a Nike slogan. "Just Do Debunk It". I wonder which you'll use next...

And lastly...

VegetableMan wrote:
Limiting speech never leads to anything good, unless you think authoritarianism is good.


EXCEPT...

VegetableMan wrote:
Speech that incites violence isn't protected under the First Amendment. Duh!
And if it's slanderous, I have the legal right to sue.


When it incites violence. Or is defamatory. Then limiting it is A-OK. 8)

Or

VegetableMan wrote:
I don't agree with it.


You have a very questionable definition of "never".



VegetableMan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Jun 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,383
Location: Illinois

08 May 2021, 4:37 pm

uncommondenominator wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:
uncommondenominator wrote:
VegetableMan wrote:

Not tolerating intolerant speech is not the same as advocating for censorship. (Jesus Christ! This is like having a debate with a child!)


How exactly does one "not tolerate" intolerant speech without engaging in some act that someone can claim is censorship?


By debunking it.


How does one debunk opinions? You can pick apart what underlays the opinion and the rationalizations used to defend it just change.


If I said to you that I believe the white race is superior to all other races, wouldn't you be able to debunk such nonsense?


Sure is cool how you answer questions with questions.

Well gee mister, you sure make it sound easy to "debunk" things. And as clever an example as you think you've come up with, it really isn't. If the person responds with "yes" they can , then your simple solution of "dEbUnK iT!" gets a false sense of effectiveness. If they say "no" they can't, then you get to claim "WeLL yOu MuSt NoT Be VeRy GoOd ThEn!" or even "tHeN mAyBe YoU'Re WrOnG!" or similar.

Realistically, there is no "evidence" that is so compelling that it cannot be undermined by an outright denial. There is no source or statement of fact that cannot be claimed is a fake or a lie. There is no logic so flawless that it cannot be undermined by an outright denial. All that needs to be done is say something like "that's preposterous!" It completely side-steps all logic and reason. "No iT iSn'T!! !" And you say I'M like debating a child... :roll:

Just because you used a fancy word like "preposterous!" doesn't change the fundamental nature of the statement. "ThAtS sTuPiD! ThAtS sTuPiD! ThAtS sTuPiD!"

Nothing can "win" against "tHaTs StUpId!" Even if you pop in a monocle and say "My word! Ballyhoo and tomfoolery! That's preposterous!", it's still "tHaTs StUpId!"

The earth is round.

"ThAts StUpId!"

No, we know this from science. We've been to space and seen it.

"tHaTs StUpId!"

We've also done calculations based on light and shadows here on earth. Math confirms it.

"ThAtS StUpId! YoUrE sTuPiD. LOL DoNt Be So StUpId! EaRtH iS RoUnD, YeAh RiGhT! If EaRtH iS RoUnD hOw cOmE We DoNt fALl OfF tHe BoTtOm?!"

Because of gravity.

"OMG MaGiC cAlLeD GrAvItY LoL ThAtS So PREPOSTEROUS!"

Since you apparently argue with children, I'm surprised you've never encountered this while doing so. I'm surprised someone as wise and knowledgeable as you didn't already know this. Adults do this too. I'm surprised you didn't know that either.

"DeBuNk It!"

Right, like it's just that easy :roll:

I can quote Snopes all day long, "ThAtS JuSt a PrOpAgAnDa SiTe!"

Dr Faucci said... "I dOnT bElIeVe HiM!"

Most scientists believe... "ThEyVe bEeN pAiD tO sAy tHaT!"

We've known for a while now that... "ThAtS JuSt wHaT THEY wAnT yOu To BeLiEvE!"

"DeBuNk It!" In other words, calmly explain to the bully why they should stop bullying, and hope you're compelling, but don't actually DO anything about it. Toothless.

"DeBuNk It" just becomes "express your easily dismissible disapproval" at that point. "Tell me why you disagree. See? I let you speak. Free speech! Still gong to ignore and deny everything you said, but I let you say it, so free speech for you too! I still get my way though, and you have to accept it. But you got to express your disapproval of it, so it's totally fair! I get to act however I want, and you get to say you don't like it! FREEDOM FOR EVERYONE!"

So far you seem to have three response categories. Answering a question with another question, dismissing a question outright rather than addressing the substance of it, and short vague meaningless E-Z non-answers that either harp on minor pedantic details or offer as much substance as a Nike slogan. "Just Do Debunk It". I wonder which you'll use next...

And lastly...

VegetableMan wrote:
Limiting speech never leads to anything good, unless you think authoritarianism is good.


EXCEPT...

VegetableMan wrote:
Speech that incites violence isn't protected under the First Amendment. Duh!
And if it's slanderous, I have the legal right to sue.


When it incites violence. Or is defamatory. Then limiting it is A-OK. 8)

Or

VegetableMan wrote:
I don't agree with it.


You have a very questionable definition of "never".


Perhaps you'd like to present a counter argument to the points I declared "preposterous. " I didn't see anthing in your post but some absurd analogies.

I can wait. Take your time. Please explain to me where I am wrong.


_________________
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -- Jiddu Krisnamurti