Who would you fight?

Yes - I posted this... "I think that society as a whole has become overly sensitive and conservative towards what I'd consider "Free Speech". How is this so bad - when SNL can do a similar thing on Live TV?? Everyone knew that this guy is a joker... " and I posted it here: http://www.tacomaworld.com/forum/off-topic-discussion/16962-hilarious-ebay-feedback.html#post221801

I was referring to eBay buyer feedback... not anything to do with race.

Again, we stand corrected - and thanks for correcting us (again). I/we agree with you that people who vote for someone based soley on their race is fair game for "Who would you fight" - now that we understand what you meant.

That said, I'll still say that race/ethnicity insults does not fall in line with "free speech"... nor do I believe that any of the moderators would approve it on TW... Albeit - we misunderstood your intent when you posted - we were all just preserving common decency against racism....

Certainly I'm not trying to argue with you over the internet - because that is just stupid... nor would I argue with you in person. I believe that each person should have his or her own way of thinking and value/belief system and to me - that isn't worth arguing over...

Lastly, having just read the wikipedia entry on Freedom of Speech yesterday, I'll leave you with this from there in hopes that we can move on and get back to posting who we'd fight:

"The freedom of speech is not absolute. Legal systems, and society at large, recognize limits on the freedom of speech, particularly when freedom of speech conflicts with other values or rights.[12] Exercising freedom of speech always takes place within a context of competing values. Limitations to freedom of speech may follow the "harm principle" or the "offense principle", for example in the case of pornography or "hate speech".Limitations to freedom of speech may occure through legal sanction and/or social disapprobation. In "On Liberty" (1859) John Stuart Mill argued that "...there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered." Mill argues that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. However, Mill also introduced what is known as the harm principle, in placing the following limitation on free expression: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." In 1985 Joel Feinberg introduced what is known as the "offence principle", arguing that Mill's harm principle does not provide sufficient protection against the wrongful behaviours of others. Feinberg wrote "It is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end." Hence Feinberg argues that the harm principle sets the bar too high and that some forms of expression can be legitimately prohibited by law because they are very offensive. But, as offending someone is less serious than harming someone, the penalties imposed should be higher for causing harm. In contrast Mill does not support legal penalties unless they are based on the harm principle.Because the degree to which people may take offense varies, or may be the result of unjustified prejudice, Feinberg suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account when applying the offense principle, including: the extent, duration and social value of the speech, the ease with which it can be avoided, the motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community at large. Liberal democracies have varying approaches to balance the right of freedom of speech with other values and principles. For instance, the United StatesFirst Amendment theoretically grants absolute freedom, placing the burden upon the state to demonstrate when (if) a limitation of this freedom is necessary. Many liberal democracies recognized that restrictions should be the exception and free expression the rule."

Cheers,
Don

Are we all cool now?

 

Whoever made SNL suck for the past 15 years or whoever created reality tv shows.

 

The KKK.... dumb ass's and if you think about it, even their initials are wrong clue clucks clan.... what did they not think that CCC was cool enough? Idiots!

 

there was an insurgent that we looked for in iraq, responsible for taking over 20 american's lives in IED blasts and suicide bombings. his initials are M.H. if i could go back for a year just to find him, i would. and i'd do things that Vlad III never wouldve thought of.

 

we are cool now. i'm moving on. and i dont want to fight anybody,i'm too tired with a newborn baby girl who takes up all my time...lol

 

congrats paintdiddy (on your new daughter)

 

Congrats on the baby girl my little one is 7months awesome expierence!

 

yeah mine was born on 10/2/08 and its crazy how it changes everything.
oh i might want to fight the first guy to break her heart..lol....no really i will..lol
maybe we should start a child thread so we can show off our own little creations. there might be one alreadyi'm too lazy to search

 

Yea - congrats!!