Closing a Thread: Warning! Graphic picture

[Matt3737]

Yes, in the West, free speech developed as a means to resist existing power structures, not as a means of self-expression, as often applied today. It is a natural right in the sense that no one has divine authority to tell you otherwise.

What do you mean by divine authority exactly? Divine authority used to be the means that governments and legal entities justified their rulings, but modern institutions do not necessarily (sometimes) rely on this justification anymore. This justification method is not absolute by any means either as murders and crimes have existed throughout history.

People have had the natural ability to speak their mind for as long as speech has existed as has oppositional speech. Whether either side is justified or not is subjective since we attempt to silence people from threatening to kill others, but we want to be able to criticize authority if we feel its rulings are unjustified.

Edit: I apologize if I'm confused or I'm confusing you or others. I mean to say that claims to divine/natural and human/artificial authority are usually just a matter of semantics. We might say that human society is either created artificially or naturally just as we might say that either ants or nature create anthills. The distinction is irrelevant, but its usage is typically made to favor one side or another of an argument.

 

[j654dgj7]

Freedom of speech is continually challenged in courts and also has its limits. You can't threaten to murder someone, for instance. Freedom of religion doesn't mean you can engage in human sacrifice. The Supreme Court recently upheld gay marriage rights also. I'm not even really sure what you mean to imply by a moral absolute. Even having an absolute right to life has its limits and interpretations such as debates on capital punishment and abortion rights/right to life.

What do you mean exactly?

That's what I'm saying. I'm not interested in getting into this debate, it's not relevant to the thread.

 

[Matt3737]

That's what I'm saying. I'm not interested in getting into this debate, it's not relevant to the thread.

I think I understand what you're trying to tell me. Let me try putting my disagreement into a different form.

I don't disagree with the closing of the thread for amad's sake, but for my sake. I wanted the opportunity to call him out on his ignorance for a little while longer. I didn't start this thread, but I did agree that I felt the thread was closed prematurely. Does that make more sense?

I get that you and sprinkles felt he was just trolling us and you're both likely right. Where is he now? Not here or in any other thread apparently. He just wanted to be a shitstain on the forum, but that doesn't mean I can't do a little bit of cleaning up on my own does it?

 

[sprinkles]

I think I understand what you're trying to tell me. Let me try putting my disagreement into a different form.

I don't disagree with the closing of the thread for amad's sake, but for my sake. I wanted the opportunity to call him out on his ignorance for a little while longer. I didn't start this thread, but I did agree that I felt the thread was closed prematurely. Does that make more sense?

I get that you and sprinkles felt he was just trolling us and you're both likely right. Where is he now? Not here or in any other thread apparently. He just wanted to be a shitstain on the forum, but that doesn't mean I can't do a little bit of cleaning up on my own does it?

Everything ends eventually whether by nature or by force. You were late to the party it seems. That happens. Regrets change nothing.

 

[Matt3737]

Everything ends eventually whether by nature or by force. You were late to the party it seems. That happens. Regrets change nothing.

True and I was fine and am still fine with that. I didn't start this thread, but I did join in and we're here now. I don't have any regrets regarding that conversation. I am now expressing myself for considerations when this occurs in the future.

Edit: Put another way: I may be disagreeing, but not because it's a huge, big deal. I've been continually clarifying myself for you and ezra's sakes.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]

Fair enough.

Also just to make sure people have the correct impression - I wasn't even worried about the fact that he could be trolling or not and at first I didn't even care about his opinion. I just thought his tact was rude and inconsiderate. That's why I told him to lurk more.

It wasn't like I started off yelling at him that he was wrong, or shouldn't say his opinion. I just advised him to be a little more considerate. He got pissy with me so I wasn't having it, and he insisted I address his "argument" and that is when it fell apart. I didn't want to address his argument. I really didn't even try to oppose it initially, if people would notice. I just wanted him to be more polite and consider his readers. He took offense to that for some reason and basically attacked me.

It shouldn't have been a big deal and it didn't have to become one. That's the only thing that truly got me stirred up - the fact that it was so pointlessly blown up and didn't have to be.

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]

Absolutely. I know that feeling all too well. Oftentimes, it's never really the argument, but how it's expressed that can be the problem. Even if you agree with someone's argument, you might find yourself disagreeing with them because of the way they express it.

Someone might be teaching math to students, but calling them idiots as they try to understand it certainly isn't productive.

 

[ThomasJ79]

What do you mean by divine authority exactly? Divine authority used to be the means that governments and legal entities justified their rulings, but modern institutions do not necessarily (sometimes) rely on this justification anymore. This justification method is not absolute by any means either as murders and crimes have existed throughout history.

People have had the natural ability to speak their mind for as long as speech has existed as has oppositional speech. Whether either side is justified or not is subjective since we attempt to silence people from threatening to kill others, but we want to be able to criticize authority if we feel its rulings are unjustified.

Edit: I apologize if I'm confused or I'm confusing you or others. I mean to say that claims to divine/natural and human/artificial authority are usually just a matter of semantics. We might say that human society is either created artificially or naturally just as we might say that either ants or nature create anthills. The distinction is irrelevant, but its usage is typically made to favor one side or another of an argument.

When power rested in the hands of authorities backed by religious authority, such as a monarch. Free speech originated to challenge such authority. It was linked with the right of people to self-govern because such "divine rights" were man-made, hence questionable.

 

[just me]

.

[MENTION=5601]ezra[/MENTION]
Folk art?
Folk music?
Folk

folks : people in general
—used to talk to a group of people in a friendly and informal way

I wasn't as gifted as the one that wrote this:
Isaiah 53:6
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

So I used "you folk." Forgive me if it bothered anyone or was taken wrong. Most people here should know I hate nobody. My battle is against principalities and powers..............

If the world were on fire; what would "each of us" do, I wonder? To some of US, there is a fire burning across the world. Some of us see the burning so differently than others. No matter how we see it, should we be proud of it?

 

[Matt3737]

When power rested in the hands of authorities backed by religious authority, such as a monarch. Free speech originated to challenge such authority. It was linked with the right of people to self-govern because such "divine rights" were man-made, hence questionable.

I apologize. I wasn't sure if you were elaborating on the merits of that distinction or not which is why I put the edit in.

 

[just me]

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

Hence, as people understood hundreds of years ago, Divine Authority.

 

[Matt3737]

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

Hence, as people understood hundreds of years ago, Divine Authority.

From the mouths of men in power whom owned slaves. As I said already, it's an irrelevant distinction. We simply agree that these rights whether we believe them to be by consensus or given by God are necessary.

 

[just me]

From the mouths of men in power whom owned slaves. As I said already, it's an irrelevant distinction. We simply agree that these rights whether we believe them to be by consensus or given by God are necessary.

Did the North own slaves? Why the war? Wasn't it widely accepted over time at the time? I wonder how the pyramids were built?

Irrelevant to you does not make it irrelevant to everyone, mind you. We agree rights are essential, as long as we don't step on people on the way up the ladder. Herein lies a big problem: please explain it to me if you will. What are rights? Is drinking a right? Is driving home after a couple of drinks a right? We have so many rules to live by, it can get confusing. Love your neighbor as yourself. Divine simplicity.

 

[Matt3737]

Did the North own slaves? Why the war? Wasn't it widely accepted over time at the time? I wonder how the pyramids were built?

Irrelevant to you does not make it irrelevant to everyone, mind you. We agree rights are essential, as long as we don't step on people on the way up the ladder. Herein lies a big problem: please explain it to me if you will. What are rights? Is drinking a right? Is driving home after a couple of drinks a right? We have so many rules to live by, it can get confusing. Love your neighbor as yourself. Divine simplicity.

A right is that which we are legally entitled to. That is somewhat circular, less so than being "self-evident," but our specific rights are derived mostly from subjective interpretations/beliefs regarding our behaviors (ideally; politics and abuses come into play also).

Love your neighbor as yourself is the golden rule, but what then if they seek to kill you? Do you turn the other cheek or do you demand your right to be loved as they love themselves?

There really are no rules except physical laws (which are still subject to our interpretation and understanding of them), but humans are rule makers both by our reasoning and our social nature. Our ability to create rules can be seen as either divine/natural/artificial inspired and these are all valid originations.

 

[sprinkles]

A right is that which we are legally entitled to. That is somewhat circular, less so than being "self-evident," but our specific rights are derived mostly from subjective interpretations/beliefs regarding our behaviors (ideally; politics and abuses come into play also).

Love your neighbor as yourself is the golden rule, but what then if they seek to kill you? Do you turn the other cheek or do you demand your right to be loved as they love themselves?

There really are no rules except physical laws (which are still subject to our interpretation and understanding of them), but humans are rule makers both by our reasoning and our social nature. Our ability to create rules can be seen as either divine/natural/artificial inspired and these are all valid originations.

This is why I don't understand how idealism could ever work. It's too easy for just anyone to say fuck your shit, I'm doing what I want. And the idealist will just twiddle their thumbs over their hypotheticals which probably aren't ever fully achievable in practical terms.

Edit:
Might doesn't make right but it does make do.

 

[just me]

A right is that which we are legally entitled to. That is somewhat circular, less so than being "self-evident," but our specific rights are derived mostly from subjective interpretations/beliefs regarding our behaviors (ideally; politics and abuses come into play also).

Love your neighbor as yourself is the golden rule, but what then if they seek to kill you? Do you turn the other cheek or do you demand your right to be loved as they love themselves?

There really are no rules except physical laws (which are still subject to our interpretation and understanding of them), but humans are rule makers both by our reasoning and our social nature. Our ability to create rules can be seen as either divine/natural/artificial inspired and these are all valid originations.

I have not been in that situation where someone I loved wanted to kill me. I truly think my instincts would take over if my life were to feel threatened. There is an instinct to survive. If in a healthy state of being, it comes naturally.

 

[Matt3737]

This is why I don't understand how idealism could ever work. It's too easy for just anyone to say fuck your shit, I'm doing what I want. And the idealist will just twiddle their thumbs over their hypotheticals which probably aren't ever fully achievable in practical terms.

Edit:
Might doesn't make right but it does make do.

Might does make right at its very core, it simply takes idealism into account and couches itself in new ways. It was Max Weber who defined the state as the entity which holds a monopoly on violence:

Karl Emil Maximilian "Max" Weber (German: [ˈmaks ˈveːbɐ]; 21 April 1864 – 14 June 1920) was a German sociologist, philosopher, jurist, and political economist whose ideas profoundly influenced social theory and social research. Weber is often cited, with Émile Durkheim and Karl Marx, as among the three founders of sociology.

The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence (German: Gewaltmonopol des Staates), is the defining conception of the state as first expounded by sociologist Max Weber in his essay Politics as a Vocation (1919). Weber claims that the state is any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory"; thus, "the modern state is a compulsory association which organizes domination." In other words, Weber describes the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten, or authorize physical force against residents of its territory. Such a monopoly, according to Weber, must occur via a process of legitimation.

According to Raymond Aron, international relations are characterized by the absence of widely acknowledged legitimacy in the use of force between states.

It's because a group is not a living entity, but composed of individuals who may or may not voluntarily associate with the group based on shared ideals that force has to be legitimated. Enough people have to coordinate to force compliance mainly through ideology, but by force if necessary.

So we are all engaged through our ideologies who has what rights and who lives, suffers, and/or dies.
[MENTION=680]just me[/MENTION]

You're right. We all have that natural instinct to survive, yet we also know death is natural too. Conflict ultimately stems from life's struggle to survive. Animals kill to survive as do plants. Some plants have poisonous defenses and some struggle with each other to reach above their canopy for sunlight.

This is our dilemma and the spiritual dilemma of religion. Religious beliefs are to prepare us for our passage from this life into the next. In that regard, we are often encouraged to give up our ego, our rights, and even our deepest held convictions.

Would you kill for Jesus or would you die for Jesus? This is my ultimate question for you.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]

It's more incidental that the state has monopoly on violence. It didn't used to be that way and doesn't have to be. Take the Three Kingdoms period in China for example. Back then legitimacy depended more upon the well being of the populace rather than the ability of the ruler to keep his claim through violence monopoly. Which is why everything went to shit when Dong Zhuo usurped power. The people didn't care how strong he was. They felt he wasn't right so they violently rebelled.

 

[j654dgj7]

I think I understand what you're trying to tell me. Let me try putting my disagreement into a different form.

I don't disagree with the closing of the thread for amad's sake, but for my sake. I wanted the opportunity to call him out on his ignorance for a little while longer. I didn't start this thread, but I did agree that I felt the thread was closed prematurely. Does that make more sense?

I get that you and sprinkles felt he was just trolling us and you're both likely right. Where is he now? Not here or in any other thread apparently. He just wanted to be a shitstain on the forum, but that doesn't mean I can't do a little bit of cleaning up on my own does it?

Why call him out any more on his ignorance? Everyone did, and he kept digging deeper holes. He was obviously not going to change his mind or learn anything from the exchange.

If he was a shitstain, he's the shitstain that keeps on giving.

 

[j654dgj7]

I think I understand what you're trying to tell me. Let me try putting my disagreement into a different form.

I don't disagree with the closing of the thread for amad's sake, but for my sake. I wanted the opportunity to call him out on his ignorance for a little while longer. I didn't start this thread, but I did agree that I felt the thread was closed prematurely. Does that make more sense?

I get that you and sprinkles felt he was just trolling us and you're both likely right. Where is he now? Not here or in any other thread apparently. He just wanted to be a shitstain on the forum, but that doesn't mean I can't do a little bit of cleaning up on my own does it?

Why call him out any more on his ignorance? Everyone did, and he kept digging deeper holes. He was obviously not going to change his mind or learn anything from the exchange.

If he was a shitstain, he's the shitstain that keeps on giving.