Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hall of AEpic' started by gizmo01942, Jan 11, 2015.
i know you were talking to him and i am siding with him on this.
ilovejesus69 I love you too. I appreciate what you're saying.
Let's suppose that you have a friend that really dislikes it when you say "turtle bicycle box", for example. He makes it clear to you that he would prefer you not do that. Obviously, because you live in the West, you can say turtle bicycle box as much as you'd like and no one would do anything about it. If your friend hit you, he'd be the one doing something illegal, not you. But if that person makes it clear to you not to do that because it really really hurts him, and you do it anyway, you would be doing a really scummy thing. Simply unacceptable. If you dislike that fact about him, perhaps you could get him some help through proper channels. Perhaps he had a traumatic experience with a turtle and a bicycle in a box. If that's the case, he can get help, and you can support him (if you believe that saying turtle bicycle box is a super bad thing that has to be changed right away).
Now, for one wild moment, let's suppose that your friend is 25% of humanity and, in reality, is actually multiple people. Each person is unique and from different backgrounds. The one thing about them is that they don't like it when you say "turtle bicycle box". Unfortunately, 0.001% of them have done wretched things to people that they consider to have seen "turtle bicycle box". Now, why on Earth would that be a reason at all to continue saying turtle bicycle box? Perhaps you even consider it to be a mental illness, like what your friend said above. Even so, going about trying to fix that or to prove 'em wrong is not the right way to go about it. Simply saying turtle bicycle box is immoral.
Now replace turtle bicycle box with your own super offensive words. Perhaps try replacing the phrase with a video game that insults what they hold precious.
Vice.com and 5 thousand people looked at our insanity and called it Darwin Awards Material. Nobody has time for that shit and left.
Are you sober right now in order to have this conversation?
Nobody should ever make decisions based on the actions of .001%
Simple math logic
Oh. I don't disagree that it's a dick move. We see eye to eye on that.
Did I not just say that appealing to consequences and hypothetical scenarios is a logical fallacy? (The answer is yes.)
For the record though, I do call out my relatives on any dumb shit they say. In fact, I do it frequently. As for the fall-out later, I learned a long time ago to be true to myself and not walk on eggshells for anybody. And most people tend to respect me for it, but that's neither here nor there.
If it's a choice between hate speech (which is itself an intellectual dodge) and censorship, then I'll always side with hate speech. Because if a person harbors irrational thoughts of hate, then they'll tend to condemn themselves with their own words. And even the most hate-filled invective can be enlightening if placed in context of the circumstances which created it. Knowing those circumstances can be useful, even if I disagree with everything a person says.
Playing the "racism", "homophobia", "Islamophobia", etc. cards only tends to indicate that the person using them is not confident in their ability to justify their arguments using facts. It's disingenuous, and cowardly.
My rights do not end where your feelings begin. FACTS > FEELS.
I'll pat you on the back for never being offended, buddy. In general, there are repercussions for being a dick. In this case, the creator of this game, and many users on EDF sharing the game, are being dicks. People get offended when other people are being dicks towards them. Living with other people in a civilization means we have to consider what others think. If you want the law changed, go ahead and try. I don't see it being changed in the near future.
This thread is becoming a mass of tl;dr meaningless garbage. What's done is done. Blasting out angry text walls every 45 seconds isn't gonna un-release the game.
Let's step back, take a deep breath, and enjoy the fireworks.
Most of this forum is compromised of dick moves. What I don't like is when the cancer in this forum spreads outsides to other regions of the otherwise typically healthy internet.
Obviously, being against the game, I'd prefer that the thread/game wasn't created in the first place so that it could be shared. I mean, I don't like it on this forum either, but it's not like I'm going to take a crowbar to an admin to force them to remove the thread.
I might be wrong, but I get the impression that you feel like you're being told that you shouldn't be offended.
All anyone is saying is that you have no right to have a violent response to being offended. Even if you're really offended.
Get back at gizmo and make a game where he fucks men and animals. That's a fair and just response to his insult.
Now, I think I am offended.
Wow, you almost caught me with that.
Who the hell taught you that appealing to hypothetical scenarios is a logical fallacy? I'd like to have a word with him.
In the case of determining whether something is moral or immoral, it is definitely helpful to consider realistic hypothetical scenarios for the purposes of argument for the sake of convenience. It's not like my hypotheticals are completely out of the blue; I try to keep them realistic. In the case of the previous hypothetical, it was more of an anecdote meant to help people better understand what I'm saying.
So, why is it illogical to appeal to hypothetical scenarios? I'm interested. I've never heard anyone ever say that before.
EDF has a history of targeting people who have committed suicide and attacking their family members on their facebook account. Its called memorial page tourism.
Yes we really really could keep our faggotry to ourselves. A lot of people would respect us not invading others with it when we know its wrong to act out in violence but provoke others to act violenty , then we clearly fucking need some lifestyle changes.
We have a history of that lol
So what are you suggesting? That the game not be made? That people shouldn't make fun of others? That religious figures not be subject to ridicule so others cannot be offended? I haven't yet understood what it is you would like to see be done.
Hmm, I think you're right. The thing is, I don't find this as offensive as others would. It's important that people on this forum recognize what other people think, especially when this forum is trying to actively spread its message.
In some situations, violence is warranted. I'm not going to kill gizmo, though. I'm not going to make a game about him. I'm probably not going to insult him.
For example, if you were to publish this openly in a place like Pakistan, for example, you would probably face punishment from the government (and perhaps from individuals). You could say that the law is bullshit, sure. Do other people think so? No, not really. That's why the law is there. You can get punished for what you say whether you like it or not. Case in point: openly expressing support for Nazism in Germany.
Heck, I know most of you have expressed a deep hatred for religion. The person you're insulting had feces thrown at him and has seen his closest of friends being tortured for what he believes in. He probably knows abuse more than most people. Yet, the same people that insulted him and drove him out from his home were forgiven by him. That's why I refer to him as the Prophet Muhammad, Peace and Blessings be Upon Him. Why would you insult Muhammad peace be upon him? What has he ever done to you? Islam was revealed as a mercy for mankind. Why take that mercy and throw it back in peoples' faces?
So if a Muslim firebombs a newspaper for printing a depiction of the prophet Muhammad the person who committed the crime isn't at fault but rather the editors who allowed the publication to be printed are to blame because it offended the Muslim. Okay.
First off, the term "realism" you used is entirely subjective. I'd also refer you to the definition of the word "hypothesis." A hypothesis is just an assertion, but it isn't valuable unless supported by evidence (this is the basis of the scientific method). A hypothesis can be wrong. Furthermore, anecdotal evidence is always qualitative (i.e., it's just one data point). The entire concept of statistics exists to make quantitative statements about the world around us, which is the only way to say pretty much anything with any real authority.
There's an important distinction here. I'm not condoning the Hebdo attacks. I saw the article published about the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), and I certainly would have preferred for it not to have printed. I would have preferred for it not to exist. But that's the world we live in. Sometime people do things that offend you. An appropriate response is appropriate. You don't just firebomb the place.
BTW: I find it somewhat too good to be true that the first victim of the attack was a Muslim policeman guarding the magazine that [probably] insulted his beliefs. Don't nitpick and mistake the actions of a few as a representation of the all.
Mercy? Seriously? I have yet to find a religion that wasn't hypocritical.
Future hate crime pending approval
Sure, no one is going to enforce such laws on the internet, probably. That's why I'm saying it's immoral. Do the right thing and don't do things on the internet simply because you can get away with it. It's like morals 101. It's less about how people could respond with harm and more about how people will want to do something hurtful because they feel hurt. Feeling hurt sucks. You can make someone feel hurt by words. Emotions suck, am I right?
As for ISIS, I don't really care. Rather, I condemn ISIS (obviously). I hope they do ultimately cease to exist. God willing.
Rather, if you have an agreement to share it amongst yourselves, that's one thing. But sharing it with others is another matter entirely.
Keep the cancer on EDF.
You're not gonna do anything productive to change a situation that you're upset with but you are gonna whine your ass off about it. Gotcha.
is this the new religion and politics forum?
nobody has a right to go through life without having their feelings hurt, their ideas criticized, their thoughts that get made public torn apart piece by piece. having disagreements and having somebody ask you why you think and feel a certain way and dig into that open sore is how people grow as human beings, otherwise they are allowed to continue being selfish hypocrites because nobody is allowed to call them on their bullshit
once something becomes an "untouchable" it gets laws made protecting it, making criticism illegal, and so on and so forth (being an unbeliever in christianity used to mean getting tortured and burned at the stake... blasphemy against christ was the death penalty)
i have not played gizmo's game, i am not going to download it, i am not going to share it on any site. that being said, i am FUCKING THRILLED that he is allowed to make it and spread it, and that people are allowed to play it, that people are enjoying it, and that he is generous enough to not ask for a fucking dime to support his creations. i am for free speech for the sake of free speech. words should not hurt people. when you make words and thoughts and emotions illegal or censor them in any way, then anything can become illegal. any manner of behavior, anything that may possibly offend someone, any idea, etc. and that is not a world i want to live in. i would much rather prefer anybody being able to say anything at any point in time. and that is how i personally live. anybody is allowed to hurt my feelings, and they have, and after a while it's like booze where you build up a tolerance to it, and then after a while nothing hurts your feelings anymore. it's pure bliss. i am allowed to call you a faggot and you are allowed to call me a faggot and then we can go frolic in a fucking field afterwards and watch the squirrels chase after each others' nuts. because nobody is hurt by it.
say whatever you want, but once somebody physically harms you for it, that is where the problems start. because then you move from freedom to tyranny
I can't really do anything in this situation.
If I can't protest something with reasonable and logical action, I should protest it with words.
At the very least, if I cannot protest it with words, I should realize that it's wrong and express regret within my heart.
I have a moral obligation to point out what's wrong and what's right. That's just some Muslim's opinion, though.
Actually you should just STFU.