The Discussion Corner

[lordpat]

This post by lordpat was thumbed up by: 3

illusion (October 7th, 2015, 6:33 am) • l.m (January 30th, 2015, 3:20 am) • Supershroom (September 30th, 2014, 4:55 am)

[Oranjui]

I don't care what people believe or think about these more controversial subjects. Just don't say it if it's going to horribly slander someone or a group of people. What people need to learn is how to respect the beliefs of others -- freedoms and rights are not free passes to attack and bash everyone else. I understand that drawing the line is difficult. It really depends on the situation. If it goes so far as to attempt to convert someone's personal values, there's something wrong. If it's an emotional attack aiming to vilify and degrade another group/individual, it needs to be stopped. Plain ignorance and stupidity is irritating, but it's usually coming from a defensive position rather than offensive. Obviously, the government can't supervise everything at once (well, maybe it can), so I'm thinking in the mindset of a justice/jury member if a case is taken that far. The whole Westboro snafu is far ahead of any line that could be drawn and definitely deserved the attention it got. I personally think that the verdict was fair considering the questionable wording, even though it goes against my moral values. More importantly, this is how changes are made. Everyone (in the US) knows about the Miranda case. He was let go (at first), but the whole thing spawned a landmark change to the way law enforcement works. That's what this new case seems to have sparked. In the future, these issues can hopefully be resolved rightfully, or prevented entirely.

[Newgeneration]

Sometimes it's tough to find a good inbetween when it comes to freedom of speech. Hard to know how much freedom is too much.

Even though there is that section in the first amendment that does not consider libel or hate speech as free speech, sometimes (like in the case of Westboro Baptist) it's hard to say whether we need to limit it or keep it as is. If freedom of speech is limited, people will obviously start getting angry about it, and believe me, there are a lot of people who would rather keep free speech as is rather than limit it. On the other hand though, Westboro Baptist Church gets away with borderline hate speech simply because they've protested at many other funerals before this one. Maybe not as close to hate speech as some may believe, but what they say out there does negatively affect the people they protest against.

Of course, the things they protest for/against are a part of their beliefs, but the way they convey those beliefs causes emotional distress for people who just want to bury their deceased loved ones in peace.

Again, it's hard to say, as I for one would hate to have my freedom of speech to be taken away, but it's hard to see people get away with the stupidest things, and emotionally hurting others in the process. That poem they wrote though, that ♥♥♥♥'s awful, as it was much more direct. It's bad enough they cause a lot of grief as it is, they had to go and intrude on their own personal matters.

Still torn between the two though...

[*Emelia K. Fletcher]

It's impossible to draw every line by law - so many problems would be fixed by mere common sense.

People picketing a funeral and disrespecting nearly every boundary present? Law said it was fine, common sense said it was absurd. The government's solution? Instate more laws.

[Venexis]

This post by Venexis was thumbed up by: 2

CedarBranch (May 17th, 2014, 5:08 pm) • Ridder (April 13th, 2014, 6:49 pm)

[lordpat]

This post by lordpat was thumbed up by:

Richardka (April 14th, 2016, 4:56 am)

[Raiyuuni]

This question, standing on by itself, sounds somewhat odd. You seem to regard reason as a factor that propells the need to invest on technology, which on its turn, caused the creation of more efficient weaponry, ultimately leading to mass destruction devices. Next, by declaring the full development of reason as the epithome of Illuminist ideals, you indirectly link the rising of this train of thought to the consequences that great conflicts in between developed countries brought.

First off, illuminist ideals came to fruition on a moment in which the standard European ideal was composed of conservative principles, all the way to the extreme scenario in which the Church had a greater influence over territories and a distribution of power than feuds. Still, depicting religious beliefs by themselves at the other side of the scales either then or today is a completely erroneous statement. Illuminism did not question a specific set of dogmas in benefit of another, it questioned the whole system of unconditional acceptance of acquired information, which happens even today - such as when a person does not cite the sources of the references of a research or does not question a possibly incoherent information on a lecture.

For the contemporary generation, reason is often defined as a cold manner of depicting the world and taking other people's feelings and achievements on today's microscopic point of view of society for granted, and emotion the ability to connect and feel empathy toward people, ideals and even animals. Applying such anthetical views to the common attitude of leaders and subordinates alike, to justify the need of a wide change of absolute attitudes to the latter, using casualties and cultural losses as a catalyst, doesn't seem only illogical, but also incorrect.

By the time the twentieth century had begun, most of the Americas had achieved political independence over their former metropolises, most of the African territory was already under influence of pioneering European nations, as well as select territories in Asia and Oceania. That, however, happened before emerging European countries had a chance to exert colonial or trading activities. Additionally, those activities, as well as expansionist and nationalistic policies, such as the Russian interest over a territory beside the southern seas that made the creation of alliance groups relevant on that moment. What's more, the increase in military investments was a way to intimidate rival potencies and delay the warfare's beginning. Lastly, the progress of military technologies on the second war resulted in a number of casualties far inferior to that of the first, and even the deaths of both World Wars were less than those during the American Civil War.

Greater or not, however, the deaths of a thousand times less people than that would still be unacceptable by today's values, or those of a century ago.

And that, in my opinion, is the true issue.

Neither irrational values nor a completely objective mindset, by themselves, will possibly lead us to a better scenario in reality. And, even if the equilibrium of such ways was achieved, the means of achieving progress, as well as our concept of progress itself, could lead us closer to a dystopian world.

How, then, could we take advantage of a balance between ideologies to do the right change in both society and the whole civilization?

[NanTheDark]

This post by NanTheDark was thumbed up by:

Kimonio (April 22nd, 2014, 7:43 pm)

[Harmless]

If people were to use their heads and understand the meaning of reason, they wouldn't have had to go through that much damn destruction unless if it was dedicated towards Nazi Germany's regime and attempting to dethrone Hitler.

Regardless, reason needs to be interpreted to the point where it does not cause conflict. Otherwise it's not reason. Sure one can say that America was only involved in WWII because of oil and Japan and not because of Hitler, but in all honesty WWII gave nobody progress. It destroyed Germany and left millions of Jews dead, it hurt France, I'm surprised it didn't destroy America itself, it hurt Japan and forced open trade, it killed many Russian soldiers, etc.

[GrandPiano]

This post by GrandPiano was thumbed up by:

Oranjui (May 18th, 2014, 4:31 am)