That's the point. Free speech can potentially be an act which causes harm to others.

I don't have the answer for this. When I was younger, I tended to be a free speech absolutist. My opinion was freedom of expression was absolute and that we just had to accept the consequences as a price to pay.

I no longer believe that.

As a general rule, I am opposed to censorship. People should be free to say what they want and others should be free to respond appropriately.

But it's naive to think that free speech is absolute. Nothing is. So we all have to be mature and accept the fact that (as distasteful as it is) some speech is not protected. At a bare minimum, we have things like libel and slander (which are important, but also open to abuse as well).

Back on the topic of hate speech.... it's a tricky one. For me, it comes down to how you define "hate speech", and there isn't really a widely accepted definition.

It ranges from nonsense like anti-blasphemy laws (victimless crime, IMO) to controversial things like holocaust denial (patently bullshit, but not actively harmful IMO) to reasonable provisions against incitement to violence (neo-nazis etc).

There's also the concept of "negative liberty". X has the right to free speech, but Y also has the right not to be threatened or intimidated in their daily life (note: they don't have the right not to be offended).

Again, I don't have all the answers. My point is simply that the world isn't black and white.

Ironically, I'm somewhat echoing the sentiments in the video, in that facing an uncomfortable truth requires you to think and that's not a bad thing. But my uncomfortable truth is that not all speech can be free.

@RedSky

here is what i don't get.
how is it the governments business what i ingest in my own body for whatever reason?

may be it is for the relief of pain.
may be it is to alleviate stress or mental anguish,and even,in some cases,mental illnesses.
or maybe i just want to get high.

i realize you have already addressed the hypocrisy and horrible execution of,what basically comes down to a social issue,but how is this the governments business?

the science is in and weed has been proven to be fairly harmless,even in abusive situations.

the biggest problem america faces today,which includes booze and smokes,is prescription pain medication.which is basically heroin addiction,but since pain pills do not hold the stigma of heroin,it is not been addressed in any substantive way.oh..this country is arresting people in droves for selling and carrying but almost nary a PEEP in the form of education.

so why is government stepping into my business?
something i engage in at home,bother nobody and keep to myself.yet i am still deemed a criminal.yet my crime is a victimless crime.

if i drive my car,or operate heavy machinery while high,that is a different story and the law should be applied exactly as it is with booze for the exact same reasons.

the state should get out of my house and stop telling me which intoxicants are "state approved",because,quite frankly..i dont give it a shit.

this archaic and destructive social policy needs to go the way of the do-do.it serves no purpose any longer,and the massive propaganda campaign that was initiated by henry anslinger at the behest of big textile in the fucking 40's should not be given even the remotest credibility by todays standards.

people like their hooch.no matter what form it takes and the government has zero business dictating which "hooch" we choose.

so then what is your response to the hundreds of other "face-punch" games?
featuring justin beiber,to hillary clinton,to even jack thompson who was making similar arguments that sarkesian was making.

where was the outrage in those cases?
those people received threats as well.
how come in those cases were viewed as either satirical or just in bad taste,but in sarkesians case it had the possibility of translating to actual violence?

even though there is absolutely zero evidence to substantiate that claim?
couldn't every single one of those face-punch games be viewed as indulgent fantasy?

and if they ARE all viewed as such,how come there was nary a peep in regards to those games,yet the sarkesian one is supposed to be taken as an actual threat of physical violence?

do you not see the hypocrisy here?

this is playing victim to a victimless crime.
it is political theater dressed up as "oppression" using fear as the main driving force.

and it draws attention away from real,actual womens grievances,and THAT my friend,is the real crime.

@Jinx
here is what you are missing,and i think should be a focal point in this situation in regards to burr:

1.while we may view burr creating a game where sarkesian gets punched in the face offensive,and maybe it is to you (i just find it in poor taste).this is a perfectly acceptable position to take.

what is NOT mentioned in this video is that burr created a very similar,distasteful game,with the exact same mechanics,for the exact same REASON a few years earlier,but in that case the face being punched was jack thompson,who was seeking to legislate by using unsubstantiated claims that video games promoted actual violence,but in THAT case it was a man whose face was being punched.

so where was the moral outrage then?nobody gave two shits.

2.guthrie responded by recruiting her fairly large feminist twitter followers to barrage burr contacts and businesses who he did work for.so it wasn't just guthrie but a group of like-minded women who banded together to,dare i say..harass? a video game developer who offended their tender sensibilities.

could we call this gaggle of offended women a cabal?
meeeeh..i think that maybe stretching the meaning just a tad in that regard,but i think it safe to call them a group of offended women.

did they have a right to band together and expose a person they felt offended by?
yep.they do have that right.

do i think it hypocritical and morally inconsistent to use the victim card,when years earlier burr created a similar game for similar reasons?but in that case it was a MAN getting smashed in the face?
yep..i sure do.

but here is where it REALLY goes off the rails.
you would think the target should be burr right?
after all it was him who created the sarkesian/thompson games.so it would stand to reason that burr would be the focus ..right?

well,you would be wrong my friend.
guthrie went after elliot for having the audacity to disagree politically with guthrie.
he never threatened her.
never used violent language.
in fact he AGREED with a large portion of guthrie's position.
he just felt it counter-productive to make a federal issue out of the situation,and advised a more cautious approach.

thats it.thats all he actually did on twitter.

and guthrie's response was,and i paraphrase "elliot seems to be unaware of our power as women.should i sic the internet on him?"

"sic the internet on him"

think about that for a moment,and let the larger implications come into focus.

so this mans life is ruined.
lost his job.
80k in the hole.
and for what?
HE didnt create the offensive game,so in what context can this be viewed as justice?equality?fairness?

no.
this is a lynch mob.
this is mob rules.
this is about privilege playing the victim in a victimless crime,and utilizing the internet to silence and punish dissent.

will elliot be absolved of all charges?
most likely,and that is even after the prosecutor changed the charges in the last minutes before sentencing in order to create a broader charge.

but that does not change the fact that elliot's life as he knew it...is over.

which is why i see a real and present danger with an overly PC community and social justice warriors who wish to impose their own set of morals on all of us.

we can look back in our own history and see the dangers of institutionalized morality police (looking at you christians).

this form of social control by way of internet bullying promotes censorship,stifles debate and literally quashes dissent.the fear of speaking your mind because it may draw negative attention from those who disagree and then translate to real world consequences that are long-lasting.

and as i said in another video,this new brand of feminism has almost nothing in common with the feminism you or i are accustomed and familiar with,at all.

i urge you to watch the video i linked to from girl writes what.she breaks down this case in a most excellent way,and it will become apparent that this new breed of feminists are just that...a new breed.

Black people and police are not equivalent groups for comparison. Police are a special group that have legal authority to use force, including deadly, against people and you are at their whim if they aren't a good person.

I know that you used black people because you are trying to push that back on other people (projecting is the term, I believe) and black people are on your mind. I know, I know, you aren't racist. You are just "stating facts."

Police are just people. Some good, some bad. I've dealt with great ones and I've dealt with ones that lack any semblance of honor or integrity. The major issue I have is that that accountability for police bad behavior is unreliable and varies greatly. I believe part of this is pure self interest in people saving their jobs and keeping their department looking good while backed by an "us vs. them" attitude that becomes prevalent among police over time.

I think the "us vs. them" attitude is a tough one to avoid for police departments. I think multiple factors feed into that. Politicians outlawing victimless crimes makes people take police less seriously and see police as a nuisance instead of a helping force. Managing police departments by quotas and numbers instead of hiring good managers to actually manage people. Police unions that protect violent cops preventing the firing of known/shown unfit cops until they do something that is bad enough that even the union can't protect them. As a cop, you usually deal with the assholes of society which will taint your view over time. Well, it's not something that going to change quickly, but ignoring the problem with transparent and consistent accountability does nothing but kick that can down the road.

That's all well and good, but the fact of the matter is, all cops uphold laws, many of which are simply unjust. For example, almost anything to do with the "war on drugs" makes criminals out of nonviolent offenders, ruining families, destroying lives. Cops also follow protocols that give them license to do what would land a civilian in jail, like shooting dogs at their discretion (the endless YouTube videos of this happening is nauseating). So, the profession itself involves doing things that, while "legal," are unethical and dangerous to the public.

Whatever good they may do -- bringing justice for victims and such -- is a separate issue from the not-so-good they do, like pursuing an immoral "war on drugs" that damages way too many innocent victims, destroys far too many lives, to be justified as "good." However good of a person someone is, the reality is that cops have a job that involves things like arresting and/or shooting people for victimless crimes.

The "accident" that happened in the situation in this article, for example (in which a police officer attempted to shoot a family's dog, but missed, thus killing a woman in front of her 4 year old child, instead) would never have happened if cops didn't have crazy protocols like shooting dogs at whim.

If any civilian had taken a shot at a neighbor's dog and killed the neighbor instead, however, no one would be dismissing it as an "accident." Why, then, should cops get a free pass on such things by simply claiming that their immoral and indefensible activity is "by the book?"

(Of course, the purpose of this comment is not to be hurtful to anyone. But to serve as a wake up call that police services in this country have been getting out of control, just like the rest of the state apparatus.)

Unfortunately "arrested" affects you almost as much as "convicted".

Eg. The police automatically notify your employer when you are arrested.
It's a common story where someone is let out soon after their arrest, then shows up at work only to find out they're no longer employed.

I was surprised that they left out the overall figure of 1 in 18 men in the U.S. is in jail / parole / being processed / in the system, whatever.

Also, roughly half of people in jail are in for a victimless crime.

Keep in mind that there are ~5000 federal laws, plus a wad of state laws (per state), county laws, city laws, etc.
Practically all laws are limits on behavior, and they do not involve any victims.

An exhaustive inventory of any given person's daily routine turns up multiple offenses per day. Everyone is guilty. Anyone can go to jail.

-scheherazade

Ok ant, that was a joke! So, I am gonna up vote this viddy on-accounta I learned a new word (HOON- gotta love it as an onomatopoeia) and I have never seen a POV viddy of a car being driven into a pond before, not-counting Hollywood renditions...

My own hoon stories could fill a small journal. One of my favs was the assassination of a Datsun B-210 with RPM, then shotguns-The poor car lurched struggling to a stop, belching oil and smoke as we double-tapped the engine block with slugs Fun-time, victimless country hooliganism-

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

>> ^Enzoblue:

Please please please forgive me, but if Jillette has never smoked pot or drank iIN HIS LIFE... I just can't trust that constitution. I don't know what to say, do I think less of him? Do I distrust his motivations? Seems to me that any human who has never jumped off the wagon just to see what happens next can't relate to me, or pretty much most of the free thinkers I do relate to.

Would he have to suck a dick before you could trust his position on gay marriage? He's on the correct side of the issue, afaic. Why does he need any different motivation than simply recognizing that there are hundreds of thousands of people sitting in prison for a victimless, non-violent "crime"? He can't be outraged unless he's smoked pot?

A. There's a difference between what a guy did decades ago when not in power and what they did WHILE in power. Santorum, while a US Senator, is preaching family values, and then moves to protect a married GOP Senator who is banging the wife of one of his own staffers. Ridiculous to say the least. Santorum is the kind of GOP candidate who says ridonculous things like..

"[Birth control is] not okay. It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

http://theweek.com/article/index/223041/9-controversial-rick-santorum-quotes

So Santorum thinks that birth control is worse and more destructive than cheating on your wife apparently. He's beyond absurd.

B. I don't care what Obama did when he was in college as long as it wasn't something like rape, sexual abuse, etc. etc. etc. (ie, victimless crimes, etc.) Are you referring to Obama smoking some pot? I didn't care that George W. Bush did cocaine either back in the day. It's irrelevant. But what Santorum has done recently is extremely relevant because it speaks to his character and values, which is ironic because he's touting himself to be of better values than all the other candidates.

>> ^lantern53:

Mr. Obama had a flawless background, being born in a manger and all...
media covered all that up...so you're saying that they won't cover this up?
doesn't seem quite fair
:rolleyes:

>> ^quantumushroom:

Whether or not the Fat Cats wanted the Gollum of Gotham gone, the fact is he and his weenie jeopardized his position on their own. A victimless crime it may have been, but this ninnyhammer was perfectly content putting men and women in jail for the same act.
Liberals suffer the same cognitive dissonance with Filth Clinton. Filth C. globetrots collecting millions for speeches on behalf of "human dignity" when he himself (literally) stripped women working for him in government jobs of theirs. This belief that the left somehow defends the weak against the strong is pure palaver.


Noo doubt clinton and spitzer are not saints. But irretrievebly damaging your nation by removing key people during the crisis because of where they put their 'weenies' is beyond retarded for most countries.
if you think telling off these boys is worth throwing away your economy you're lucky to be in the only country that wouldn't consider you insane.
China appreciates it though so at least someone's doing well..

Whether or not the Fat Cats wanted the Gollum of Gotham gone, the fact is he and his weenie jeopardized his position on their own. A victimless crime it may have been, but this ninnyhammer was perfectly content putting men and women in jail for the same act.

Liberals suffer the same cognitive dissonance with Filth Clinton. Filth C. globetrots collecting millions for speeches on behalf of "human dignity" when he himself (literally) stripped women working for him in government jobs of theirs. This belief that the left somehow defends the weak against the strong is pure palaver.

you're never going to convince enough people it's bad to justify a ban.

you can scream mutilation all you want but even if you're right, it's still too much of a victimless crime. Sure there are exceptions, but the general rule is that either people don't even miss the foreskin, or they don't even know what circumcision is until much later in life so they don't even know they were missing anything so it's an "out of sight, out of mind" situation.

Yes, I'm aware that there have been cases of doctors botching the procedure and there are life long complications, but that's an individual screwing up, not a problem inherent with the procedure itself.

Where's the outrage over mutilation due to body piercings? tattoos?

This is something that should be left up to the parents to choose. This is also where separation of church and state kick in.

If there was some worldwide epidemic of complications due to circumcision running rampant then that would be a different issue, but that isn't happening so.... In other words...where's the fire?

In a perfect world, I would agree that it probably shouldn't happen, there shouldn't be any stigma one way or the other about it. But we don't live in a perfect world and you can't work backwards on something like that. People have to choose. It's the same with abortion, it's the same with smoking, etc. If it's ok to choose to have an abortion, then it's ok to choose to have a circumcision done to your kid.