DiabloFans

Helping someone else come out of the closet isn't trolling, it's therapy.

You sound exactly like all the "strait," frat boys I used to hook up with in college.

It's your life though, so whatever makes you happy.

1. Execises religiously
2. Massively narcissistic
3. Careful attention to other males
4. Posting online about possible encounter with man
5. Not gay?

Sounds like you're thinking outside the closet. That said, I think the KFC guy is probably a poor choice of first male companion.

Quote from ScyberDragon

can I admit that I am not liking any of them

Yes. You can. Luckily you gave quite an extensive time period so we might see some good ones. Maybe I'll do something that you'll like.

Thanks Dae! Hopefully with some real time put in it will be nice and pro.

Quote from Groanan

I'll give a more detailed response later, but I can summarize all I am trying to say with this hypothetical:

Two kids are sitting in a backseat
One is older and a lot more vocal and witty
The other is younger and quick to using fists

The older kid starts chastising the younger, baiting him
the younger kid blows up in anger, and hits the talker
If you say that younger kid is violent, I agree.
If you say that the older kid is peaceful, lol.

Yes, he is peaceful. He is not the one who resorted to violence. I would have thought that was obvious? Try using an incitement defense in a murder case, it won't get you very far. International and US law are quite clear on this.

Words and thoughts are always provocative. The moment you blame the speaker for the physical violence visited upon him: you leave free speech behind. Violence must be punished, but freedom of expression cannot and should not be compromised in order to make sure the violence doesn't occur. Civilized people should conduct themselves as such and realize that if they cross the threshold from words to fists, they have commited a crime and there is no excuse for it. Democracy is not for those with a thin skin. We debate devisive topics on a daily basis. What keeps the society going isn't being nice or avoiding offense, it's adressing taboos and ensuring that nothing goes undiscussed.

Nobody has an objective opinion on offensive speech. Nobody has the right to censorship in the public square because it will vary WIDELY based on who's opinion you take. Free speech is absolute, it is uncompromising, it is the right of every human being to say what they think and debate it with anyone else, regardless of how offensive it is. If it is a truly disdained point of view, I think you'll find it very unlikely that people will pay credence to the speaker.

Quote from Groanan

You are not even reading or comprehending my posts, you are just spouting knee jerk reactions.

If defending your right to speak openly about anything, without taboos isn't a knee jerk reaction for you then I suppose I can't convince you otherwise. I only pity that very odius point of view.

Quote from Groanan

I am talking about the concept of peacefulness.

Peace should be kept, but that should not be pre-empted by censorship. If the only thing keeping someone from killing you is the understanding you'll never insult that person, there is no peace. That person will eventually find something that they feel is offensive and kill you anyway. There is no relativism when it comes to free expression.

Quote from Groanan

If English is not your first language, I apologize, but I never said that hate speech should not be protected constitutional speech necessary for a free society.

You insisted on that very point. I invite you to clarify.

Quote from Groanan

I fully agree with you.

I am saying that hate speech is not peaceful.

FFS, if someone can translate please do; I'm done trying to communicate with Proleteria until I see a semblance of comprehension.

I don't know what you're trying to qualify here. You either think censorship is good or you think that speech is necssarily free from censorship. Peace and Conflict are entirely diffirent, they are physical manifestations and have nothing to do with expressing the opinions of the mind. A peaceful protest can blast the most offensive ideas they like and still be peaceful. There is no objective person to decide what is offensive. If you decide to say that anything offensive negates the "peaceful," aspect of the protest I think you'll find nothing is absolutely not offensive and thus no discourse is peaceful by your definiton.

There have been a number of good debates recently on the subject. The point being, in recent days there is a fairly strong left (ultra-masochist and apologist relativeism) and right (fundamentalist religion) movement toward self-censorship and retarding free speech. While the nexus of this is certainly a fear of islamic reprisal, governments everywhere are becoming complicit or simply complacent. What the world needs now is precisely more people exercising these basic rights, letting the leaders of our governments know that we continue to demand free expression and human rights in general.

Quote from Groanan

That is just blatant brainwashing, of the sort you'd expect textbook makers in Texas to come up with.
A peaceful man would not spout hate speech "because it is promoting free speech, and free speech is peace."

Full stop. You clearly don't understand the concept of free speech. Hate speech is protected aswell. That is how it works. If "hate" speech is banned that means someone has to decide what is and is not hateful. The implication there is obvious.

Freedom of Speech MUST include a license to offend: Intelligence Squared Debate - 2007

This debate pretty well lays out the arguments for and against if you're interested. Sufficed to say, the opposition gets crushed.

Quote from Nekrodrac

Ugh...I hardly understood what you were saying there Proletariat...
Don was addressing the point of 'sexist attitude' specifically and explained himself well. You seem to be talking about a completely different thing or at least taking that argument away from its particular context. Decode please.

I explained it was an irrelavent argument. Saying that men are pre-disposed to violence has no bearing on the efficacy of peaceful protest. It's an obvious straw-man.

Quote from Don_guillotine

What I was trying to say was that banks play an important beneficial role in a functional society (while pursuing their own ends, they are beneficial to the society). Many laypeople misunderstand banking even on a simple level, why they exist, what they do, and so forth. It's like me criticizing something chemistry-related when my knowledge of chemistry is rudimentary at best.

I wouldn't disagree, but that's no recourse for their incredibly irresponsible behavior. This isn't something a professor of economics would disagree with me about (i've talked to them on many occasions), even a die-hard Keynesian.

Quote from Don_guillotine

As for the protest, yes, like I said, the people have the right to protest their mind. They're just protecting against the wrong target, with possibly falsely based motives, but it's their right to do it in any case.

Assuming it gets any press, the target selection is largely irrelavent. It's about numbers, having a cogent opinion, and getting it across. I don't know if they can do it, but I respect them for trying. It is certainly better than not protesting out of apathy.