A message from Seth
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2013, 10:36 AM
RE: A message from Seth
(08-07-2013 10:12 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 10:05 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I'm sure once a better quality version of World War Z come sup for download I will get the reference. Until then I'll just nod my head and smile.

All I can say is watch the movie without expecting it to follow the book... at all... and you will thoroughly enjoy the summer action flick.

It was a book?

I don't read.

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
08-07-2013, 10:36 AM
RE: A message from Seth
(08-07-2013 10:24 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 10:07 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  I am over it. But you and others keep bringing up censorship. I am challenging that notion. Where's your opposition for the censorship of trolls and spammers?

As far as I can tell you are trolling right now.

Actually, this comment you just made can be considered such. I asked you a valid question. This is the only way you can respond?

Let me remind you that it is not I that brought the subject of censorship up first. I was asleep when all of this went down. I was ready to thank Seth and move on after his post. But the replies that followed Seth were:

"I disagree with Seth and think this is censorship, but his word is final and I'm okay with that."

And here you are, after my having questioned that rationale, telling us to move on. Yet, you had to add at the end of that remark that you are against the censorship. You effectively did not take your own advice.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
08-07-2013, 10:37 AM
RE: A message from Seth
(08-07-2013 10:32 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 10:25 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I won't risk the ban, just in case...

And yes, of course there're other places.

Anyway, I was just answering the question about trolls and spammers, we didn't have this rule before so I included the pedos in the "free to speak" category.

And now the rule is in place. And with this rule, a person has quit. Many more will move on normally, but add that they are against the decision.

So now it is fair game when I ask why this (pedophilia) and not that (spam/trolls)? Or were you guys secretly against banning trolls and spammers all along?

Because pedos have triggered PTS in a good portion of the forum population and the welfare of the community supercedes free speech. Trolls and spammers are annoying to some, the pedos literally ruined lives. There is quite a huge difference.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
08-07-2013, 10:39 AM
RE: A message from Seth
(08-07-2013 10:37 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 10:32 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  And now the rule is in place. And with this rule, a person has quit. Many more will move on normally, but add that they are against the decision.

So now it is fair game when I ask why this (pedophilia) and not that (spam/trolls)? Or were you guys secretly against banning trolls and spammers all along?

Because pedos have triggered PTS in a good portion of the forum population and the welfare of the community supercedes free speech. Trolls and spammers are annoying to some, the pedos literally ruined lives. There is quite a huge difference.

Not those ones...

[Image: 3cdac7eec8f6b059070d9df56f50a7ae.jpg]
Now with 40% more awesome.
Find all posts by this user
08-07-2013, 10:39 AM
RE: A message from Seth
(08-07-2013 08:04 AM)Ferdinand Wrote:  LET US RETURN TO REJOICING AND LOVE-MAKING Weeping

When I read this, all I can think of is: Back to the pile!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dkWqf1Ikz8

Aspiring optimist
Eternal Pragmatist.
With the uncanny ability to see all sides in every argument.
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Caveman's post
08-07-2013, 10:40 AM
RE: A message from Seth
(08-07-2013 10:32 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 10:25 AM)nach_in Wrote:  I won't risk the ban, just in case...

And yes, of course there're other places.

Anyway, I was just answering the question about trolls and spammers, we didn't have this rule before so I included the pedos in the "free to speak" category.

And now the rule is in place. And with this rule, a person has quit. Many more will move on normally, but add that they are against the decision.

So now it is fair game when I ask why this (pedophilia) and not that (spam/trolls)? Or were you guys secretly against banning trolls and spammers all along?

As I said, because spammers and trolls don't bring anything to the table. Yeah, we can argue about if pedos do or don't but whatever, my opinion is that they could.

In other words, I don't think that spammers/trolls are the same as this kind of people (as long as they aren't trolling with the topic, it could be anything other than pedophilia)

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
08-07-2013, 10:40 AM
RE: A message from Seth
(08-07-2013 10:37 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 10:32 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  And now the rule is in place. And with this rule, a person has quit. Many more will move on normally, but add that they are against the decision.

So now it is fair game when I ask why this (pedophilia) and not that (spam/trolls)? Or were you guys secretly against banning trolls and spammers all along?

Because pedos have triggered PTS in a good portion of the forum population and the welfare of the community supercedes free speech. Trolls and spammers are annoying to some, the pedos literally ruined lives. There is quite a huge difference.

I think you misunderstood me.

I'm asking why the free speech proponents are talking about how they are against censorship of pedophilia talk, yet they aren't against the censorship of spammers and troll. Especially considering that, like you pointed out, pedophilia is a much hotter topic.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes NoahsFarce's post
08-07-2013, 10:43 AM
RE: A message from Seth
(08-07-2013 10:40 AM)nach_in Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 10:32 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  And now the rule is in place. And with this rule, a person has quit. Many more will move on normally, but add that they are against the decision.

So now it is fair game when I ask why this (pedophilia) and not that (spam/trolls)? Or were you guys secretly against banning trolls and spammers all along?

As I said, because spammers and trolls don't bring anything to the table. Yeah, we can argue about if pedos do or don't but whatever, my opinion is that they could.

In other words, I don't think that spammers/trolls are the same as this kind of people (as long as they aren't trolling with the topic, it could be anything other than pedophilia)

I get that. But this isn't about purpose. This is purely about freedom of speech.

So in your case, you are an advocate for freedom of speech, but you have your limitations. Spam and trolling are two of them.

“We are all connected; To each other, biologically. To the earth, chemically. To the rest of the universe atomically.”

-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
08-07-2013, 10:54 AM
RE: A message from Seth
(08-07-2013 10:13 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 10:12 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  All I can say is watch the movie without expecting it to follow the book... at all... and you will thoroughly enjoy the summer action flick.

That should ALWAYS be the rule for movies based off books.

Except for LOTRs.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
08-07-2013, 11:04 AM
RE: A message from Seth
(08-07-2013 10:43 AM)NoahsFarce Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 10:40 AM)nach_in Wrote:  As I said, because spammers and trolls don't bring anything to the table. Yeah, we can argue about if pedos do or don't but whatever, my opinion is that they could.

In other words, I don't think that spammers/trolls are the same as this kind of people (as long as they aren't trolling with the topic, it could be anything other than pedophilia)

I get that. But this isn't about purpose. This is purely about freedom of speech.

So in your case, you are an advocate for freedom of speech, but you have your limitations. Spam and trolling are two of them.

It's always about purpose, every right has limitations, and those limitations are based on the purpose of the right to begin with. Freedom of speech is supposed to allow people to claim a space to speak without fearing negative consequences (in our case banning), but it's there so polemic ideas can be discussed without others blocking them, so it's about avoiding oppression and allowing diversity, because that's a positive thing.

Now trolls and spammes, by definition, aren't trying to debate or discuss an idea, the intention of the speech itself is to either incite discord or to flood the forum with unwanted advertisement.

The trolls is the most delicate kind to deal with, and we allow a great deal of trolling here because of that, and it's good imo.


I don't think that the pedos were promoting pedophilia, it's not the way I interpreted them. Promoting pedophilia is bad. But discussing it: trying to better define it, finding what constitutes consent, what's the best age to allow consent, or, in general, better understand the grey areas that we can find in the topic is not the same.

I understand that it can be too hard for some to have that kind of debate, and I respect the decision to limit it so we can talk about everything else. But it's a limitation to free speech that fails the very purpose of that right in my opinion, and that's why I think it's not entirely good.

Of course this is not real life and we have a different set of rules, I get that, that's why I respect the decision.

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes nach_in's post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: