This site exists because of ME

[Beefy]

Funny how SR added the _ to his name in an attempt to avoid being located in the database and added to the ignore list. With the underline to everyones name it was almost hidden at first.

SR now ignored.

Um, no, he added it because the usernames here require three charachters. Don't be a retard. You really think he's hiding or something?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

SR, I brought up an analogy of allowing people to block channels.

You went off on the deep end and said that it would be evil to allow people to block certain actors. It would be pointless to block actors. It would not be pointless to block channels, or TV shows, or users.

Really, this isn't a government anyway, so the analogy is useless.

 

[Beefy]

This is an interesting argument though because I strongly believe that government cannot give rights, it can only take them away. As I reconcile this against SR's argument and Damos argument, I'm inclined to agree with Damocles (if this were a government - thats the pretext they're arguing upon).

Essentially Damo is saying that we can do whatever we want, and if we want to ignore someone, the right is there, it has not been taken away. What SR is saying is that some sort of government can determine if a person is worthy of being ignored, and then the peons can decide then if they want to ignore such person.

I agree with Damo, although, SR's thing would have been fun, if he were trustworthy as an admin.

* disclaimer, I like SR, he did a good job with his board, but its like no limit poker. One misstep and you lose some serious equity.

 

[SR_]

SR, I brought up an analogy of allowing people to block channels.

You went off on the deep end and said that it would be evil to allow people to block certain actors. It would be pointless to block actors. It would not be pointless to block channels, or TV shows, or users.

Really, this isn't a government anyway, so the analogy is useless.

no, i used your analogy and corrected you, and clearly explained the relevance everytime. Care had mentioned that she didnt need government help, in this instance she does in order to have this tool, the admin is the government of this site, the admin decides what the rules are, who stays, who goes, how it operates, and so.... in effect to have this option she does need the government it is not a natural occurance to be in any scenario and remain there while making other disappear from existence.

It would not be pointless to block actors if you felt you needed such a tool, as many on this site feel they need. You cant block a channel and still watch the channel water. If the thread is a channel then the members posting are the actors, they make up the content. If you block the channel you no longer see ANY of the show or the actors. Obviously if you wanted to watch the show you would be choosing for yourself to penalize yourself if you turned it off. With this tool you escape such accountability and continue to watch the channel but just erase some actors. This feature is offered to you by the admin, without such dependence you would not have such an ability.

SR

 

[SR_]

Essentially Damo is saying that we can do whatever we want, and if we want to ignore someone, the right is there, it has not been taken away. What SR is saying is that some sort of government can determine if a person is worthy of being ignored, and then the peons can decide then if they want to ignore such person.


youre wrong mbl. Damo is saying the right is there to purposefully not avoid someone, to not take any personal action that involves accountability, but instead DEPEND on him to offer you a tool to make other speakers invisible. DAMO is the government. You are essentially depending on the government to offer you a way to NOT take individual actions to choose to ignore someone, but instead DEPENDING on the government to provide you with that capacity.

What I am saying is that ALL speech is protected unless the people decide that certain behavior is unacceptable. On FullPolitics I AM THE GOVERNMENT and I do not decide in any way if a person is worthy of being ignored. Everyone is equal within the same medium. If the people decide that certain behavior is unacceptable and pass such a designation by a majority than ALL MEMBERS EQUALLY have the opportunity to make that person invisible.

In addition all forms of speech being protected until a decision or a definition is decided by the people, it offers a method for a particular speaker to protest such a designation or to prevent themselves from being made invisible, meaning, they have a way to plead their case, make changes in behavior, etc..

When speech is not protected and the environment is censored due to personal taste than the individual who is ignoring others can be wherever they want, talk about whatever they want, to whoever they want with no accountability for their desire to avoid any other speaker.

If we are both a building that has four rooms and I do not want to see or hear you, it is up to ME to avoid you through action. I can decide whether to go into a room you are in or not, which you may be in a room with 20 pretty blondes and I may want to go in there but I must weigh whether it is worth it, and If i decide not to enter then I am accountable for my actions to myself, I may decide to go in the room with you and tolerate you, again I may suffer because you are there but I choose to be there with you and that is an inevitable result. I may decide to not pay attention to you, and to show personal control over my ability to pay attention to other things, again I am accountable for my actions.

What DAMO is offering you erases all that by fiat, meaning the other people in the room may love you as you have no crossed any unacceptable line, but I want to be there too and so I walk in right beside you and DEPEND on Damo to provide me the ability to forsake any accountability and press a button and make you invisible.

I put forth no effort to recognize what is acceptable behavior, and no effort to avoid you of my own volition instead I look to the government to provide me the solution. And you have no recourse in your ability to be heard even though we are both in the same room, the same environment, using the same medium. The government who is not elected has declared us unequal and offered you the ability to remain without accountability and silence me.

Right now in reality with our protections on free speech, the peons decide what is acceptable, the peons enforce what is acceptable, and the peons remain accountable for their own decisions. I am suggesting nothing different.

You mischaracterized both my and Damo sides.

SR

 

[SR_]

I agree with Damo, although, SR's thing would have been fun, if he were trustworthy as an admin.

* disclaimer, I like SR, he did a good job with his board, but its like no limit poker. One misstep and you lose some serious equity.

this is bullshit peanut boy no matter how many times you repeat it.

SR

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

no, i used your analogy and corrected you, and clearly explained the relevance everytime. Care had mentioned that she didnt need government help, in this instance she does in order to have this tool, the admin is the government of this site, the admin decides what the rules are, who stays, who goes, how it operates, and so.... in effect to have this option she does need the government it is not a natural occurance to be in any scenario and remain there while making other disappear from existence.

It would not be pointless to block actors if you felt you needed such a tool, as many on this site feel they need. You cant block a channel and still watch the channel water. If the thread is a channel then the members posting are the actors, they make up the content. If you block the channel you no longer see ANY of the show or the actors. Obviously if you wanted to watch the show you would be choosing for yourself to penalize yourself if you turned it off. With this tool you escape such accountability and continue to watch the channel but just erase some actors. This feature is offered to you by the admin, without such dependence you would not have such an ability.

SR

You see, SR, that's where the difference's between this and real government begin.

The government doesn't own my speech. Yet, technically, the admin owns all of the speech on the site. There isn't any realistic way to circumvent this. To compare it to actual government is beyond useless. If the people want an ignore feature, give it to them. It's certainly not less intrusive to only offer people one list.

 

[Beefy]

youre wrong mbl. Damo is saying the right is there to purposefully not avoid someone, to not take any personal action that involves accountability, but instead DEPEND on him to offer you a tool to make other speakers invisible. DAMO is the government. You are essentially depending on the government to offer you a way to NOT take individual actions to choose to ignore someone, but instead DEPENDING on the government to provide you with that capacity.

SR, you miss my point. You are suggesting that some sort of legistalive body making its decisions through popular opinion is better at deciding who people should or should not have the right to ignore. You are defacto relegating the individual to a political process. You know me SR. You know that I respect the rights of the individual above the subjugation of rights by a beauracracy.

What I am saying is that ALL speech is protected unless the people decide that certain behavior is unacceptable. On FullPolitics I AM THE GOVERNMENT and I do not decide in any way if a person is worthy of being ignored. Everyone is equal within the same medium. If the people decide that certain behavior is unacceptable and pass such a designation by a majority than ALL MEMBERS EQUALLY have the opportunity to make that person invisible.

All speech is protected here as well. What you are failing to realize is that nobody is being precluded from saying anything whatsoever, in any capacity here. People in fact are afforded the freedom to preclude what they read, but nobody is precluded from writing anything. We both know the same can't be said for your board.

In addition all forms of speech being protected until a decision or a definition is decided by the people, it offers a method for a particular speaker to protest such a designation or to prevent themselves from being made invisible, meaning, they have a way to plead their case, make changes in behavior, etc..

The difference is that you make it collectivist, and Damo makes it individual. With the Security Council, people will be able to only act upon what a beauracracy says, and in doing so, they will be able to ignore all, or ignore none. You're completely relegating the individual to a group that determines what is and what is not a troll. The individual becomes secondary to the popular election. Again, a collectivist approach.

If we are both a building that has four rooms and I do not want to see or hear you, it is up to ME to avoid you through action. I can decide whether to go into a room you are in or not, which you may be in a room with 20 pretty blondes and I may want to go in there but I must weigh whether it is worth it, and If i decide not to enter then I am accountable for my actions to myself, I may decide to go in the room with you and tolerate you, again I may suffer because you are there but I choose to be there with you and that is an inevitable result. I may decide to not pay attention to you, and to show personal control over my ability to pay attention to other things, again I am accountable for my actions.

But we are not in a room in the classic sense. I'll humor you anyway though. Say this room is full of beautiful blonde sirens, and one fat obnoxious broad suffering from halitosis and athelete's foot. I would love to be in this room of sirens only, and be avoiding the beast, but the Security council says that in order to avoid the beast, I must also give up the sirens. The SC has essentially said that I must give my power to ignore and accept to a couple of people who I find the least untrustworthy. Do you get that?

 

[Beefy]

What DAMO is offering you erases all that by fiat, meaning the other people in the room may love you as you have no crossed any unacceptable line, but I want to be there too and so I walk in right beside you and DEPEND on Damo to provide me the ability to forsake any accountability and press a button and make you invisible.

Again, this is not a real room, but I'll humor you. In the sense of this board, you are afforded the opportunity to no have to see any given posters posts. In your board, a commitee will decide who is eligible to be ignored or not. Its a collectivist thing again. Surely you realize this. I do think it will be a cool thing once you have it down, but you must realize that you are not absolutely right while everything else is absolutely wrong. That's your ego fucking shit up again.


You mischaracterized both my and Damo sides.

Maybe this post will clear that up. I don't misrepresent friend. You have made this some sort of contest. Well its not, you do whatever you want with your board, Damo does the same.

this is bullshit peanut boy no matter how many times you repeat it.

SR

You broke your own rule, and if you read the thread of Grinds on your site where this whole thing was unearthed, you'll see that I was damned well on your side until you went and published other members u2us. That was a fuckup. You should recognize it.

 

[SR_]

SR, you miss my point. You are suggesting that some sort of legistalive body making its decisions through popular opinion is better at deciding who people should or should not have the right to ignore. You are defacto relegating the individual to a political process. You know me SR. You know that I respect the rights of the individual above the subjugation of rights by a beauracracy.

no, through representation the people decide what is acceptable behavior. You dont need me to allow you an option to ignore. You need me to enforce the desires of acceptable behavior. In terms of a message forum, I can offer you the same protections against such censorship as I offer anyone else as long as the terms for deciding what behavior make you deserving of such censorship are applied to everyone else. OTHERWISE no one is ever censored by anyone else.

You know me SR. You know that I respect the rights of the individual above the subjugation of rights by a beauracracy.

And free speech rights shouldnt be facilitated by the government, meaning I shouldnt be able to refuse to offer you the same right to be heard as anyone else in the same medium and chosen environment because youre black. The subjugation of rights facilitated by the government is just as bad.

All speech is protected here as well. What you are failing to realize is that nobody is being precluded from saying anything whatsoever, in any capacity here. People in fact are afforded the freedom to preclude what they read, but nobody is precluded from writing anything. We both know the same can't be said for your board.

sure it can, the only difference Is i dont facilitate it on an individual basis. no one depends on me, they do it themselves and accountable for their own decisons, if they dont want to read something it is up to them to not read it, one thing is for sure though, ALL speech is equally visible to ALL members no matter their taste as they choose to go to the forum, and they choose to click on a thread.

The difference is that you make it collectivist, and Damo makes it individual. With the Security Council, people will be able to only act upon what a beauracracy says, and in doing so, they will be able to ignore all, or ignore none. You're completely relegating the individual to a group that determines what is and what is not a troll. The individual becomes secondary to the popular election. Again, a collectivist approach.

I would hope that any type of censoring is done on a collectivist level if we are to operate equally in the same medium. I dont want a police officer in Denver to make up his own mind that I should not sing "Silent Nite" to myself as i walk down a public street just because he hates the song, or he hates me for being white, or for whatever reason. I like the protection of knowing what i can do to prevent me from being silenced. Left up to the individual there is no longer that protection, no method of appeal, if i dont like you i can silence you even though we both should be equal in this medium, we should have the same rights, the same protections.

But we are not in a room in the classic sense. I'll humor you anyway though. Say this room is full of beautiful blonde sirens, and one fat obnoxious broad suffering from halitosis and athelete's foot. I would love to be in this room of sirens only, and be avoiding the beast, but the Security council says that in order to avoid the beast, I must also give up the sirens. The SC has essentially said that I must give my power to ignore and accept to a couple of people who I find the least untrustworthy. Do you get that?

Actually its the exact opposite, you dont have to avoid the sirens, you do however need to convince a majority of the people in building that the fat obnoxious beast is not acceptable. If you cannot do that, then you will suffer her but you wont be missing any of the blondes. If you can, then you will have an option, to ignore her. At the very least she knows that hey, "im fat, im diseased, if i lose some weight and get healthy I can avoid this". In either case you dont lose the blondes, but you do have to make a decison and hold yourself to account, "are the blondes worth suffering the beast?" if so, make a choice to go in the room, if not make a choice not too, but in either case I DID NOT FACILITATE YOUR PERSONAL DESIRES, they were and are still out of my hands, where they should be.

And we are in a room. We access the building the same way, we walk through the building in the same halls, all the rooms are available to each of us in the same manner, our voice is the same volume, everything is the same at a forum. You may not like taking account for your actions, but thats how equality is protected, I work hard to succeed, I like to play poker and If i lose I pay for it, i want to read this thread and toby is in it so ill suffer him, UNLESS people make a distinction of unacceptable behavior in this environment, and then and only then can they look to the executive to enforce rules or laws against it.

SR

SR

 

[SR_]

Again, this is not a real room, but I'll humor you. In the sense of this board, you are afforded the opportunity to no have to see any given posters posts. In your board, a commitee will decide who is eligible to be ignored or not. Its a collectivist thing again. Surely you realize this. I do think it will be a cool thing once you have it down, but you must realize that you are not absolutely right while everything else is absolutely wrong. That's your ego fucking shit up again.

i see, i must agree or its an ego thing. Im not trying to convince you to tell me im right peanut boy.... calm down. its a debate.

The "collectivist" attitude ensures protections of speech as the people collectively designate what is acceptable and what is not. There was a time when a person could decide worhiness on an individual basis, worthy to be seated, worthy to have access to a certain water fountain, worthy to be left alone to practice their own cutures... In both cases you are afforded the opportunity to not see another persons posts, its just one way relies on the individual, the other way relies on provided tool.

Maybe this post will clear that up. I don't misrepresent friend. You have made this some sort of contest. Well its not, you do whatever you want with your board, Damo does the same.

you did misrepresent when you tried to summarize. And its not a contest between this board and my board, i could care less what happens here, this is a principled debate... its like you cant understand people actually just wanting to debate, its always a personal issue for you. why is that?

You broke your own rule, and if you read the thread of Grinds on your site where this whole thing was unearthed, you'll see that I was damned well on your side until you went and published other members u2us. That was a fuckup. You should recognize it.

I didnt break my own rule, there was no personal information displayed on the site. u2u's are not personal information, you may think they are and thats fine, but they arent. No ones real name, or address, or anything was revealed on the board which is specifically what my own rule pertains too and you know it. And I said i did recognize my mistake and apologized for it. I wasnt then and im not now seeking your thums up. I keep telling you that and you keep accussing me of some ego problem or other horseshit.

Im not seeking your support mbl, again you make everything so personal and emotional? Its like youre a bitch or something?

SR

 

[Beefy]

And free speech rights shouldnt be facilitated by the government, meaning I shouldnt be able to refuse to offer you the same right to be heard as anyone else in the same medium and chosen environment because youre black. The subjugation of rights facilitated by the government is just as bad.

SR, either you are being dishonest or obtuse in making this point. There is a profound difference between someone's right to free speech, and someones right to see and hear, read and absorb. Nobody, but nobody is being restricted from saying whatever they want here.

This is simply not happening, but you keep throwing out that strawman as if it will go over my head. Nobody is restricted from saying anything. Everyone has the right to say whatever they want (well, except for Grind and BDW at your site).

I would hope that any type of censoring is done on a collectivist level if we are to operate equally in the same medium. I dont want a police officer in Denver to make up his own mind that I should not sing "Silent Nite" to myself as i walk down a public street just because he hates the song, or he hates me for being white, or for whatever reason. I like the protection of knowing what i can do to prevent me from being silenced.

Again, you're being dishonest. Nobody is preventing you from SINGING silent night. But rather, they are saying that they should be able to avoid HEARING it.

I swear man. You know you're dragging this argument into the abyss, I just wonder why you have to change the premise? And then I realize it is so that you can win the argument, that you can be right, and you ego can feel good. Seriously man. Good night.
The difference is that people here have the ability to filter what they don't want to see. I predict that most wont use it, but the ability is there.

In your classic fashion, I will give an analogy. If parents preclude certain channels from coming into their home via a filter on their cable box, are they squelching free speech?

Think about it SR.

 

[SR_]

In your classic fashion, I will give an analogy. If parents preclude certain channels from coming into their home via a filter on their cable box, are they squelching free speech?

no. but this is not what is happening here. You either have to accept that this board is a channel, or a thread is a channel. You have to at the very least use the analogy and assign what is what to your examples.

I dont think parents precluding certain channels from coming into their home via a filter on their cable box is squelching free speech. But I do think that theyre decision to do so wont allow them to watch the channels. I dont think the same is true here, as you can continue to watch the channels but filter out the actors. Which is fine, but this censors the actor without changing the environment or blocking the channel.

Again, this is just fine, but that ability is DEPENDENT on the admin. In terms of a message board this is fine, as i mentioned earlier when speaking with Damo, I am not addressing the reality of the message board, but the principle of it. This was in response to Care4all's statement that she didnt need the "government" in this regard. Quite obviously she does, as she is dependent on such a feature that does not occur naturally at any point in her life in this society.

We are all able to avoid hearing things, we simply avoid the location of the speech, or we tune it out, or we tolerate it. We however have no right to remain in the same place knowingly and purposefully while making the speaker invisible through government facilitation. The reason for this is because we all have accepted laws that govern what is acceptable and what is not, and if you choose not to leave or change the channel than you accept the right of the person who is speaking to be heard. In fact it is protected that they speak within those acceptable limits and you cannot take any action personal or otherwise to make them invisible to yourself or others, you simply either leave, dont pay attention, or you tolerate it.

I have yet to be dishonest mbl.

SR

 

[Beefy]

no. but this is not what is happening here. You either have to accept that this board is a channel, or a thread is a channel. You have to at the very least use the analogy and assign what is what to your examples.

Okay, the channel is HBO, and I don't want everything that's on there. I filter out certain programming. I can watch Shrek 2, but not Taxicab confessions. How am I usurping free speech. Again, you misconstrue someone's listening ability as someone's ability to speak. Free speach is free speach. It does not mean that your speech is somehow undermined if someone chooses not to hear you. Get it yet?

I dont think parents precluding certain channels from coming into their home via a filter on their cable box is squelching free speech. But I do think that theyre decision to do so wont allow them to watch the channels.

Incorrect. Filters work on shows as well as channels. But even if you were right, it is not a matter of free speech.

The rest of your post talks about the principle. That's exactly what I've been arguing. I can respect your principle about having people in the same medium having to deal with the same shit. But what you have been saying is that there is some sort of squelching of free speech via the ignore feature, and I'm merely showing you that you're wrong in that particular assessment.

I'll catch up with you later. I've got a couple of Johnsonville Brats on, and saurkraut in the pan.