Faust marry meFaust wrote:
That Was Not The Point I Was (Trying) To Make, Please Try Again But In The Meantime Go And Read What I Have Written
vs.
Haha No That Was Not The Point I Was (Trying) To Make, Please Try Again But In The Meantime Go And Reflect On What I Have To Write
forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting
posted
Total Posts
57,720
He's not even saying you did ?
Dude you're letting the entire thing go over your head.
@Kisses: Maybe.
Dude you're letting the entire thing go over your head.
@Kisses: Maybe.
He's giving "arguments" (idk what term to use) that had no correlation with what I was talking about. How'd that make sense? I know his point, but I'm really confused as to why he's talking about it.
I've said it over and over that watching porn during leisure time is most definitely ok. It's just that if you watch it too much and let it control your mind, you'll end up being a degenerate. Nothing delusional about that.
I've said it over and over that watching porn during leisure time is most definitely ok. It's just that if you watch it too much and let it control your mind, you'll end up being a degenerate. Nothing delusional about that.
Whenever someone uses the word 'degenerate' unironically I get triggered a little
Is it because you're a degenerate yourself or..
I hear taking things too seriously causes problems too.
But we're not into that right ?
Also Railey just loves to carpet-bomb words because he's smart and can English his way through.
But we're not into that right ?
Also Railey just loves to carpet-bomb words because he's smart and can English his way through.
I'm not the kind of person to have misunderstandings remain as misunderstandings. Whether I take it seriously or not doesn't even matter.
It's weird hearing about yourself isn't it, KissesKisses wrote:
Whenever someone uses the word 'degenerate' unironically I get triggered a little
See that's why Railey and you keep playing this silly ping pong.
Also why'd you change your username ?
Also why'd you change your username ?
o shitFoxtrot wrote:
It's weird hearing about yourself isn't it, KissesKisses wrote:
Whenever someone uses the word 'degenerate' unironically I get triggered a little
also, I love how right now, every time I step away from the forums to do something, there's at least one new post in this thread
most arguements get turned into a dick measuring contests on this thread its rely nice
Sick of people pm'ing me and thinking I'm a girl. Most weeb Filipinos in the channel think this game is a dating site.
A dating site that they think they have a chance of picking up girls from.
Clearly no one in their lives has told them to fuck off yet, it's up to you dude.
Not trying to come across as salty or w/e but why is it you always get involved in other people's exchanges? This is like the 50th time nowFoxtrot wrote:
It's weird hearing about yourself isn't it, KissesKisses wrote:
Whenever someone uses the word 'degenerate' unironically I get triggered a little
Look who's talking. Besides, I can post whenever I want; this is a public forum for a reason, after all. And yeah, you're coming off as really salty so I can't help but laugh at you for it
every day includes people who do it once a day though. I agree that if the time exceeds an hour per day, you're stepping into dangerous territory, but most people don't really go thereMadvillain wrote:
but since when did i talk about watching it once a day. i said everyday, but not once a day?
railey, seriously, wtf.
anyway misunderstandings suck, addictions suck too, I think we're on the same page in this anyway. I just don't like people using the word "degenerate" prematurely.
Wrong.Madvillain wrote:
too much porn can turn you into a degenerate
Too much porn doesn't make you a degenerate. Being a degenerate makes you watch too much porn. There is a difference.
In my opinion, both are true.
Too good.
T-That's another curious claimEneT wrote:
Wrong.Madvillain wrote:
too much porn can turn you into a degenerate
Too much porn doesn't make you a degenerate. Being a degenerate makes you watch too much porn. There is a difference.
Can't be. Watching too much porn suggests there was already something wrong in your life in the first place. Maybe you ain't gettin' any good pussy, you're ugly, un-social asf or w/e. No one with a decently functioning life would watch porn and become addicted to it when the real thing is so much better and easy to attain.
But it happened to Terry Crews who was already a successful actor and footballer. It happens. Just not that often though compared to the point you made.
There was already something wrong with him to begin with, just because he's successful doesn't mean there can't be something wrong in his head. Unlike drugs or alcohol, Porn isn't the kind of thing you watch then suddenly become addicted to but much like drugs and alcohol it's a form of escape. There is a reason why you're watching Porn, there always is.
You shouldn't be questioning the act of doing things, rather, questioning the reasoning behind those actions.
You shouldn't be questioning the act of doing things, rather, questioning the reasoning behind those actions.
Fair point.
It's basic understanding of human psychology. Railey was saying earlier that too much Osu makes you a degenerate too when that's wrong. Playing too much Osu means you're already a 'degenerate' in the first place as those people clearly have no better substitute than playing this game for countless hours.
It's wrong to say that having a lot of money makes you rich. If you have a lot of money, you're already rich in the first place!
the distinction you're making here is completely nonsensical, EneT.
Plus, addiction doesn't always happen for rational or predictable reasons. It can just happen without anything pointing towards it. Maybe people had a rich life before they started playing osu, but then just dropped their other activities one after another while increasing their playtime until it turned into something bad and compulsive.
the distinction you're making here is completely nonsensical, EneT.
Plus, addiction doesn't always happen for rational or predictable reasons. It can just happen without anything pointing towards it. Maybe people had a rich life before they started playing osu, but then just dropped their other activities one after another while increasing their playtime until it turned into something bad and compulsive.
Now you're the one being nonsensical. The example you give has nothing to do with psychology. There is a root to all addictions and it can stem from something as simple as having an addictive personality, which is a problem in of itself. If you're going as far enough to drop other activities to the point it becomes bad and compulsive, there's something wrong going on inside your head, be it consciously or subconsciously.
so having an addictive personality makes you a degenerate cause there's something wrong with your head?
You do realize that many people with addictive personalities live completely functional lives? it just means that they have a greater potential to become addicted. Sure, addictions have roots, but these roots themselves can hardly be enough to call someone a degenerate. Many people who have them end up living perfectly normal lives.
What you do is akin to calling someone with a great business sense rich before he actually earned something, because after all that may the condition that allows him to make a lot of money later on...
You're a degenerate if you exhibit degenerate behavior. The definition of degenerate (in a social sense, which is how rurree used the word) is tied to how people perform as a part of society, nothing else. it also has nothing to do with psychology.
You do realize that many people with addictive personalities live completely functional lives? it just means that they have a greater potential to become addicted. Sure, addictions have roots, but these roots themselves can hardly be enough to call someone a degenerate. Many people who have them end up living perfectly normal lives.
What you do is akin to calling someone with a great business sense rich before he actually earned something, because after all that may the condition that allows him to make a lot of money later on...
You're a degenerate if you exhibit degenerate behavior. The definition of degenerate (in a social sense, which is how rurree used the word) is tied to how people perform as a part of society, nothing else. it also has nothing to do with psychology.
I also don't like how degenerate was used in this conversation; this is why I referred to it as 'degenerate' in this post.
The way degenerate was used here, for me points to the psychological effects prior to and during addiction, so he didn't fully imply it in the social sense. It has everything to do with psychology. He may be using it in the wrong way but the word degenerate itself fully implies the decline of your psyche.EneT wrote:
It's basic understanding of human psychology. Railey was saying earlier that too much Osu makes you a degenerate too when that's wrong. Playing too much Osu means you're already a 'degenerate' in the first place as those people clearly have no better substitute than playing this game for countless hours.
Madvillain wrote:
It's just that if you watch it too much and let it control your mind, you'll end up being a degenerate. Nothing delusional about that.
if you let it control your mind, aka if you give into it any addictive potential you might have and start exhibiting degenerate behaviour, which means prioritising porn over more important things.
note that the point here is, that you are only degenerate when you actually let it take control, not when you are in a group where the risk of it taking control is increased. You turn degenerate once you start being addicted, just like you turn rich once you make all the money. You aren't degenerate just because you have an addictive personality, and you aren't rich because just because you have a good business sense.
note that the point here is, that you are only degenerate when you actually let it take control, not when you are in a group where the risk of it taking control is increased. You turn degenerate once you start being addicted, just like you turn rich once you make all the money. You aren't degenerate just because you have an addictive personality, and you aren't rich because just because you have a good business sense.
Your 'being rich' analogy is completely different; you're looking at a completely different perspective to what I'm saying.
When it comes to getting addicted to things non-drug related, there has to be a certain level of decline in your head. That doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with you, but it can. Maybe you're experiencing a stressful situation or just not thinking right. In the case of this conversation, you need to already have a certain level of degeneracy (mental decline) to become addicted to something. People don't just become addicted to something out of the blue like that. Addiction doesn't cause degeneracy, it just increases it. You don't have to exhibit degenerate behaviour to be a degenerate. You guys are just using the word degenerate in the wrong way as it's commonly used as an insult for people that exhibit that behaviour.
When it comes to getting addicted to things non-drug related, there has to be a certain level of decline in your head. That doesn't necessarily mean there's something wrong with you, but it can. Maybe you're experiencing a stressful situation or just not thinking right. In the case of this conversation, you need to already have a certain level of degeneracy (mental decline) to become addicted to something. People don't just become addicted to something out of the blue like that. Addiction doesn't cause degeneracy, it just increases it. You don't have to exhibit degenerate behaviour to be a degenerate. You guys are just using the word degenerate in the wrong way as it's commonly used as an insult for people that exhibit that behaviour.
you define degeneracy as a psychological state that can even be there in the absence of degenerate behaviour, i define degeneracy as degenerate behaviour.
i can't see how your definition is useful, because even perfectly functioning people could be defined as degenerates, according to your definition. Degenerate is a very strong word, hence why it should be reserved for people with very severe social impairment.
But that's just my opinion, can't tell you to use the same definitions that i use.
Semantic arguments...
i can't see how your definition is useful, because even perfectly functioning people could be defined as degenerates, according to your definition. Degenerate is a very strong word, hence why it should be reserved for people with very severe social impairment.
But that's just my opinion, can't tell you to use the same definitions that i use.
Semantic arguments...
Yes, and the way you and most other people use it is the wrong way to use it; that's why it's clearly separated as 'degeneracy' and 'degenerate behaviour'. The only reason it has a strong connotation for you is because of the way it is commonly used as an insult for fucked up assholes. It simply means a decline of psyche but since people nowadays use it as a word to insult people who have outlandish morals or shitty social skills it gives off the wrong impression. It's brainwashing hammered onto you due to society.
You can keep using the word however you please since that is how it's commonly accepted as but since Rurree used it wrongly in a psychological sense, then fo sure imma go psychological on you hoes and use it in it's true, psychological meaning.
You can keep using the word however you please since that is how it's commonly accepted as but since Rurree used it wrongly in a psychological sense, then fo sure imma go psychological on you hoes and use it in it's true, psychological meaning.
heyhey now. Let's not call it an opinion that i hold because of brainwashing, when it's clear that degeneracy is a word with a dozen meanings, and none of them are even used in clinical psychology. You don't get to decide that your definition is right and mine is brainwashed. As it stands, the word isnt something that has been defined in psychological terms, so different definitions are to be expected. That doesn't mean that only one is more right than the other, they can just be more or less useful.
Yeah... no. It's psychological meaning is already defined and the way people commonly use it nowadays to insult others stems from this definition. Yes, it can have many meanings when used in different fields as it's most basic definition is the deterioration into a lower level but since in this case it's used as an insult derived from it's psychological meaning, then the definition you hold is still due to brainwashing.
In the past, you could have held up that argument as it was used to insult people of lower social status such as minorities and poorer people but the way people use it nowadays to insult people of low social skills and questionable morals directly stems from it's psychological definition.
In the past, you could have held up that argument as it was used to insult people of lower social status such as minorities and poorer people but the way people use it nowadays to insult people of low social skills and questionable morals directly stems from it's psychological definition.
you can go ahead and call everyone brainwashed who doesn't want to call people that function perfectly fine degenerates, but i have to tell you that's quite an outlandish thing to say.
You say a degenerate could even be someone who behaves normally, while i claim the opposite.
small correction on my part, i meant to talk about the word 'degenerate', as a description of a person, not of the word 'degeneracy', or the word 'degenerate (adjective)'.Railey2 wrote:
you define degeneracy as a psychological state that can even be there in the absence of degenerate behaviour, i define degeneracy as degenerate behaviour.
i can't see how your definition is useful, because even perfectly functioning people could be defined as degenerates, according to your definition. Degenerate is a very strong word, hence why it should be reserved for people with very severe social impairment.
But that's just my opinion, can't tell you to use the same definitions that i use.
Semantic arguments...
You say a degenerate could even be someone who behaves normally, while i claim the opposite.
I can see where you're coming from but it's still wrong. I myself don't use it in it's true, psychological meaning normally either. I don't call normal, functioning people degenerates; I use it in it's commonly used definition as an insult. That doesn't take away the fact though that this negative connotation is wrong and due to brainwashing from past and present popular culture.
Girls in England call each other slags as an insult, but does that mean the original definition has an negative connotation? No, no it doesn't.
Girls in England call each other slags as an insult, but does that mean the original definition has an negative connotation? No, no it doesn't.
language changes all the time, that's the nature of it.
The word 'nice' used to be an insult, while the word silly used to be a compliment!
Original meaning matters little. Language is constantly evolving.
The word 'nice' used to be an insult, while the word silly used to be a compliment!
Original meaning matters little. Language is constantly evolving.
Original meanings still matters. Words need to retain some kind of semblance of their original meaning for people to understand how words nowadays derive from so that the language doesn't derail like it has done so in the past.
the two examples i made show words that derailed in the most extreme way (the meaning reverted completely), but i doubt that anyone would see that as something bad. There is no semblance of the original meaning there, but i bet you didn't even know of it. They are just regular words that became different regular words. Nothing wrong with that.
Yeah I didn't know. That's a pretty cool fact of the day.
Still, nowadays people use many words in the completely wrong way and this in turn becomes a trend. In this case, the language isn't really 'evolving' per se, merely changing due to misconception. There has to be order, even if it is in something minuscule such as language.
Still, nowadays people use many words in the completely wrong way and this in turn becomes a trend. In this case, the language isn't really 'evolving' per se, merely changing due to misconception. There has to be order, even if it is in something minuscule such as language.
that's what evolution is. A change caused by error in translation, something that was misconceived and turned into something else because of it.EneT wrote:
Yeah I didn't know. That's a pretty cool fact of the day.
Still, nowadays people use many words in the completely wrong way and this in turn becomes a trend. In this case, the language isn't really 'evolving' per se, merely changing due to misconception.
Language doesn't follow the dictionary, the dictionary follows language. There is still order, even though the order from today might not be the order from 100 years ago. What matters is that people at the time can understand each other.
Whatever you say man. Evolving suggests an advancement and I don't consider using words in a completely different way an advancement, I consider it a degradation. Just look at the use of slang words. You really call that an evolution of language?
I don't, that isn't advancing forward, that's going backwards.
That's a rhetorical question btw for others to reflect, not to reply to. You can give your opinion but it won't necessarily mean that I will care for it or that I will reply. I'm tired of this conversation.
I don't, that isn't advancing forward, that's going backwards.
That's a rhetorical question btw for others to reflect, not to reply to. You can give your opinion but it won't necessarily mean that I will care for it or that I will reply. I'm tired of this conversation.
i'm sure people from the 1400s would have really looked down on Shakespeare for using such a degenerated (tehee) language in his works.
You consider simply doing things differently a degradation? Most conservative statement i've ever heard.
Either way, singular words changing their meaning (which happens all the time), isn't really what causes language to degenerate. What really sets things off is changes to grammar...
You consider simply doing things differently a degradation? Most conservative statement i've ever heard.
Either way, singular words changing their meaning (which happens all the time), isn't really what causes language to degenerate. What really sets things off is changes to grammar...
Both of you...
eat a dick
eat a dick
guys stop I got my first tattoo
bitch fuck you hell no I wouldn't tattoo that or even say that as a joke
lmao but no really I'll post one sometime soon for teh lulz
lmao but no really I'll post one sometime soon for teh lulz
such a letdown
DeletedUser_6709840
Okay.
hika's tattoo is really nice
railey what the fuck you cant say that about someones backRailey2 wrote:
neat. is that on your back? Looks like it's huge
You mean tatoe?
Seph
people work on the Philippines?Seph wrote:
Man internship in the HR department (recruitment) is so tiring yet satisfying. I love rejecting people for work!
In sweatshops they do.
Must be rough getting rejected from a sweatshop.
seph tell us about your experience working at a sweatshop !
Hmm.
More interested in the qualifications needed to work in a sweatshop.
Can anyone from the country apply or is it strictly only children?
Can anyone from the country apply or is it strictly only children?
You guys.
We could always start a new topic.
well then here it is;
Which cartoon you were watching WAY TOO much when you were a child?
Which cartoon you were watching WAY TOO much when you were a child?
Spongebob
Actually, there's no such thing as too much spongebob. The spongebob memes are extremely relatable
Actually, there's no such thing as too much spongebob. The spongebob memes are extremely relatable
idk if it's worth anymore my arm is stingingMadvillain wrote:
hika's tattoo is really nice
I knew waiting until 20 for my tattoo was a great idea
showplzHika wrote:
I knew waiting until 20 for my tattoo was a great idea
If only it wouldn't prevent me from donating blood in the future..
I don't have access to a computer in my car whoops sowwie
and you can still donate blood after a tattoo, you have to wait 12 months in America if it's not from a state regulated tattoo parlor, otherwise, you're good to go.
and you can still donate blood after a tattoo, you have to wait 12 months in America if it's not from a state regulated tattoo parlor, otherwise, you're good to go.
It's a mixed bag though in this country. Like, no one knows if the needles are reused or not. If I were to get one, probably in a different country.
While I would agree with what you're saying, you're clearly misusing the word 'degenerate'. Degenerate means people who display morally regressive behaviour, not people who simply aren't well adjusted.EneT wrote:
It's basic understanding of human psychology. Railey was saying earlier that too much Osu makes you a degenerate too when that's wrong. Playing too much Osu means you're already a 'degenerate' in the first place as those people clearly have no better substitute than playing this game for countless hours.
You clearly didn't read or understood the entire discussion.B1rd wrote:
While I would agree with what you're saying, you're clearly misusing the word 'degenerate'. Degenerate means people who display morally regressive behaviour, not people who simply aren't well adjusted.EneT wrote:
It's basic understanding of human psychology. Railey was saying earlier that too much Osu makes you a degenerate too when that's wrong. Playing too much Osu means you're already a 'degenerate' in the first place as those people clearly have no better substitute than playing this game for countless hours.
I don't really think I watched one particular cartoon too much, but Wacky Races was probably the one I watched the most frequently. I used to watch a lot of shows that came on Boomerang.Tornado wrote:
Which cartoon you were watching WAY TOO much when you were a child?
Spongebob Squarepants and Fairy Odd Parents for me.
Today I found out Raspberriel is a girl, wtf????
you knew that all along, come onKisses wrote:
Today I found out Raspberriel is a girl, wtf????
I only just found out you're older than me, thought you were 17 or smthin.
Why do we even have to post shit that is neither funny nor interesting?!
No Point
No Point
why ya here tho.
Word spreads around fast among the under-age child lovers. He must be here because he heard something to do with children.
will khelly ever be better at mania than raspberriel ?
Free speech is not a core value of the left. The people who I always hear who want to get rid of free speech are leftists. They claim that some speech is classified as 'hate speech', and since they can apply their arbitrary definition of 'hate speech' on anything they don't like, it destroys the concept of free speech. This will tie into my further points about government control.Railey2 wrote:
not over everything. Free speech is a core value for the left as well.
I want to make some arguments for governmental control then.
This is why governmental control is needed. The notion that a free market regulates itself is simply wrong. This has been demonstrated multiple times, often with horrible consequences. When you give people too much freedom, they will find a way to exploit that to fuck others over for their own benefit. People are too scummy to be allowed to be completely free, all the time. An instance like the government is needed to keep things under control, within reasonable boundaries.
This doesn't mean the government controls everything. Personal choices that don't affect others, aka most choices about your personal life, aren't affected. Saying that the government wants to control everything is insane. Governmental control realistically won't interfere with most parts of your life.
You only hear of it if you are in a position of power, such as an employer. That's when the government checks up on you, to see that you don't fuck people over.
Similarly, the government also doesn't want you to fuck yourself over. You can't just go "oooh I just won't get sick, so I don't need healthcare, haha! My children also won't need healthcare cause they won't be sick!" And then you break your leg and can't pay your bills because you don't have insurance.
People need to be protected from their own choices too, sometimes. It's the compassionate thing to do. It's like a benevolent parent that tells you to not be an idiot.
What irks me is that people pretend freedom is a good thing. It's not. Freedom can be a horrible thing, because it gives people the opportunity to hurt others or themselves. There needs to be a balance between freedom and control, if you want anything to work.
Again, this doesn't mean that everything is controlled.
Having a state controlled curriculum that is up to date goes without saying, otherwise you run danger of having creationist bullshit being taught in public schools.
I think it's a real problem that people spout bullshit over the value of freedom without second thought. Freedom isn't good by itself, it never was. And it surely can't fix super complex, multi-layered problems.
To conclude this post: I think that holistic arguments like this one are pretty useless in general. It's a lot more useful to look at single regulations/laws, and see what they want to control, for what purpose they want to control it, if they can be expected to fulfill this purpose, and lastly if the purpose is good.
Everything else seems like a waste of time. When you break down an argument like I just described, I don't think that the left and the right would disagree as often as they might think. There is a lot of potential for common ground.
No, the actions of one company to not necessitate government control. I've heard multiple times already of the same pills being developed for a small fraction of the cost. That is the free market in action, you just fail to comprehend the way in which the free market can solves problems and thus your instinctive reaction is 'the government has to regulate it'. No, it has not 'been demonstrated multiple times' that a market can't exist without regulation, a genuine free market has never existed.
And yes, government control has a MASSIVE effect over everything in our lives. Your income, the economy, what media you consume, your ability to travel, what items you can acquire, how safe your environment is, your right to defend yourself... everything. If you don't believe me, people in America have been forced to shut down lemonade stands because they did not have a 'permit' and a business license. Your claim is utterly false.
Now there is another claim I really hate: people are too stupid to have responsibility over themselves and their family. They must be coddled by a nanny state. Ridiculous. People should not be forced to buy healthcare or insurance. People should not be forced to give away cash not only to the government to pay for other people's mistakes, but to a mandatory retirement fund. This is the government overstepping its bounds and interfering with people's freedom to make their own decisions. People should be allowed to make mistakes, and also they should suffer the consequences of their actions. It should be up to a person to look after their own self preservation and further their own interests, the state's job is to protect people from outside harm. If you suddenly decide it is the state's job to protect them from themselves, the suddenly nothing is off limits. In your position, the state should ban tobacco because it does no good and only causes harm. In fact, something doesn't need to be dangerous, it only needs to appear to be dangerous to be banned. In Australia, many things are banned because of this. Throwing stars are banned, likely because of their appearances in ninja movies, despite being on of the least dangerous 'weapons' out there. A type of kelp that is essential to Japanese cooking is banned, because it is high in iodine and one pregnant women ate high amounts of it every day and got sick and miscarried.
And before you tell me 'bla bla every policy should be considered for its own merits', that's not how democracy works. Logical arguments are worthless in the face of mass hysteria and emotional arguments. Once you concede your rights to the state, you are at the mercy of the tyranny of the majority, you are at mercy of the whims of politicians, without effective means to fight back. This is the case for everything. Once you give the government direct control over the education of an entire nation, you open up the means for the government to push ideological propaganda and subversive teachings that further the state's interests.
You say 'people are inherently irresponsible and need to be controlled'. How does that makes the the ones governing us any better? how does that make the majority from which our democracy is supposedly controlled any better? The fact that people can be bad is the sole reason that centralised power is BAD not GOOD. Because people can abuse their power and affect millions. Unlike your dubious claims of tyranny under a free market, we have many examples throughout history of the state being tyrannical, and killing millions of its own citizens. An yet you argue that the state should be given more power over us.
This is the reason one must have unalienable rights and I can make absolute statements about the jurisdiction of the government. If you give an inch they will take a mile. Giving away your rights is a slippery slope to tyranny, and don't say 'that could never happen to my government'.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin
The left and right have a similar purpose, the betterment of society. The difference is the method they try to achieve that purpose. The left has a simplistic and often emotional view of things; "to make people less poor, give them money"; "the only way to stop this behaviour is to use the force of the state"; "some people got hurt by something, therefore it must be banned/regulated". The right understands that things are more complicated than that.
Who's fault is it that the Jews have been accused of shit thought out the centuries and have been kicked out of pretty much every country they have inhabited at some point or another?Rasberriel wrote:
If you can't see how accusing an entire demographic (that has already been accused of mounds of other shit for centuries) of being "pedophile apologists" is bad, then there's really no point in continuing this. And I haven't even touched on the fact that even the assumptions she used to make that claim are flawed. But yeah, whatever, keep defending YouTube comments.
Another example of how you can't understand simple concepts of the free market. If people are sick of the MSM lying to them, they will watch alternative outlets. And this has happened a lot recently. If people want to watch news that parrots their own views on matters, then they will. Regulating the media is a horrible idea and violates freedom of press. This is happening recently as right wing sites have been attacked for 'fake news'. Censorship under any other name would small as sweet.Railey2 wrote:
another example for my claim that freedom isn't always good: Journalism that is solely after money instead of promoting honest argument to confront serious topics, quickly turns into something akin to buzzfeed, fox news, or this. There are easier ways to make money on the free market, after all. If there is nobody to hold journalists to a standard, the quality of overall media will plummet sooner or later.
Who could hold journalists to a standard? The government. For example by implementing laws that state that you aren't allowed to misrepresent political arguments on purpose to influence your readership in a certain way, etc.
Also, your bias is showing when you insult Fox News despite the left wing media outlets being a lot worse.
the point is, it should not up to the people. It should be up to a third party organization that hopefully consists of unbiased, qualified people, who can tell the difference between fair coverage and blatant dishonesty.
There are many instances where news stations straight out lied about the facts. Take for example climate change, or creationism. As soon as you call yourself a news agency, or seek to fulfill the same function under a different name, you should under no circumstance be allowed to lie about clear facts.
Now this sounds pretty radical, so let's put it a different way:
There are two extremes.
1) People just say whatever they want. We have creationism being taught in public schools, news stations just report whatever they like, some of them still try being honest but most just pander to their audience and feed them with the information they want to hear. Nobody is being held to a standard, facts don't matter, it's just everyone living in his own echo chamber.
2) A government that has all the tools to censor opinions on national TV and elsewhere, if they deem them unfitting. Even though the tools were meant to enforce something that may look like this, it is easy to see how such power could be abused pretty quickly.
I believe that the the US is approaching the former in a frightening speed. People already talk about our days being a supposed "post-fact-era", and I believe there is a lot of truth in that, simply because nobody is holding the media to a standard.
Standards are important in journalism, they are immensely important, but currently there are no ramifications if you simply break every golden rule known to journalism. There needs to be an authority that can take the role of a governing instance, otherwise every country will slowly but surely approach the post-fact-era, just like the US is doing now.
And I bet you that this authority will not be the public. The public cares more about its own biases and indoctrinated beliefs than about facts and honest journalism, unless you make them care.
However, we can't have the second extreme either. Free speech is important, but so is the truth. There needs to be some sort of balance. I wouldn't know how exactly that balance can be achieved, I just know that it is very important to not arrive at either extreme.
as i said, balance is key. The left is definitely in favour of more governmental control, but nobody wants a dystopian future where everything is censored and controlled.That's one of the worst statements I've heard this year. You think you can get a team of unbiased, qualified people to dictate the media? Ridiculous. You can never prevent corruption and personal bias when you give people tool like this.
And no, my views on creationism and climate change denial aren't opinions. It's a fact that climate change is real and that the world is older than 6k years. Those are facts. It's important to get this distinction right. Teachers that teach their students wrong things about the world shouldn't be teachers. News anchors that blatantly lie shouldn't report on the news.
And I've already said, evolution and climate change are not facts. They might seem very likely given the evidence, but that does not make them a fact. A fact is something like 'the sky is blue'. I'm not interested in debating the probability that these things are true. What is important is that there is a possibility that they are not. And that's why free speech is so important, sometimes the minority of voices telling the majority that they are wrong are actually right. Instead of being extremely dogmatic and censoring people who want to promote their point of view through a public broadcast, just engage in civil discourse. People will believe what they want to believe. Censoring or regulating the media will never result in more truth.
Funny that I hear you using the word 'post-truth', I read a newspaper article about it a couple of days ago. Basically it comes down to people, and by people I mean left-wingers, who use this term to imply that the people who disagree with them are ignoring the 'facts'. I think left wing people are ignoring the facts and truth, but I'm not trying to shutdown left wing sites because I don't think they are correct.
You keep saying you don't want a 'dystopian future of government control', except that's exactly the result of what you're arguing for. You're the one who naively thinks the people in power, i.e. the government can regulate itself when given authority over everyone.
More like you have internalised the the word freedom to mean chaos and violence without understanding why it is a good thing. And you don't understand the concept of freedom of speech either. It's not the same as medical misconduct, like what is in your example. It relates to the idea that people should be able to espouse ideas and concepts without retaliation from the government. And every government that is taken part in indoctrination has censored speech. When you try to stop 'indoctrination' (i.e. people with different ideas) it quickly can turn into you becoming the ones indoctrinating people.Railey2 wrote:
well d'uh free speech is already restricted in many places and nobody would even think of suggesting something else. He's acting as if only the liberal party has an interest in respecting free speech, but actually.. every single party known to me does.
If you have cancer and you go to the hospital, the leading surgeon can't just go: "Hey man guess what you don't have cancer after all now go home to your kids and don't worry about it anymore!"
That's illegal. He is not allowed to lie to you because that would have horrible consequences. It's a restriction of free speech.
Freedom of speech isn't always something positive, but people get indoctrinated to a point where they just go against everyone who claims otherwise, without second thought. I bet B1rd internalized the equation freedom = good so much, he will just discard my comment without reading it a second time.
(on a side note, a "theory" is often an immensely well supported fact, in scientific lingo. Like the theory of gravity, or the theory of evolution)
You don't have a 100% guarantee for anything in life. If your standards for what constitutes a fact are so high that you think it is valid to ignore decades of well-founded research, then facts might as well not exist in your world.Holding to media to standards is good. Censorship is not. Expose them and call them out on it if they lie about facts. Facts are something like "the black guy did not have a gun' when it is shown clearly on film that he did. Like I have already said, 'decades of well founded research' does not constitute a fact and is not valid grounds for censorship regardless of how likely you think the theories are. I don't care if there is a 0.0000001% chance that something is incorrect. The possibility that it might be wrong is enough justification for people to be able to espouse skeptical views.
That's what people mean by "post-fact-era". When you say "hey, only because scientists talk about it doesn't mean it's true", as if that's a valid excuse for believing something that is completely unsupported instead of acting as if the vastly more likely option is true, then every rational discussion becomes completely useless.
News anchors have an obligation to the public, just like doctors or teachers do. It is their duty to inform the public. News HAVE to be factual, otherwise they aren't news.
If someone is casting a talkshow, that's a different issue, but news channels? Just look at fox news, or even CNN recently. The public forgot what makes facts facts, and more importantly, they forgot to care about facts. I accredit this partially to the criminal neglect of the media outlets. This is what we get when we don't have an authority putting its foot down to hold people to a set standard. You'll get a country with lots of dishonest, biased and simply stupid people. I can't stress this enough: Holding the media to a standard is immensely important. Restricting free speech is important.
And even if something was a 100% fact, telling people that they can't talk about or teach creationism in private schools is a violation of religious freedom.
Regardless of how plausible some theories (or 'hypothesises' for our autistic friends here) are, a lot of people write them off simply because they sound too extreme to be real. Some Conspiracy theories are speculations of mentally unstable people, which they have a stereotype for being, but this clouds the fact that some have some solid evidence for.RoseusJaeger wrote:
That doesn't mean anything unless you have cold, hard evidence for the claims. That's why conspiracy theories often stay are just that, a theory. It may be possible and may some convincing arguments but that doesn't make it fact.
Forgive me but it seemed like a whole lot of uninteresting arguments on semantics.EneT wrote:
You clearly didn't read or understood the entire discussion
She may look like a pre-pubescent little girl, but in reality she's over 2000 years old :^)EneT wrote:
Word spreads around fast among the under-age child lovers. He must be here because he heard something to do with children.
That was alright. B1rd poster of the year.
Free speech part
the value of free speech means that you can speak your mind without having to fear governmental persecution.
Medical misconduct is an example of free speech being limited, because the doctor lying (sir, you don't have cancer after all!) will lead to him serving prison time. The doctor is not at all free to say what he pleases because he is in a position of medical responsibility. His free speech is limited, and everyone would agree that a limit is useful in this case.
One can agree that limits like this are useful while still supporting the general concept of free speech.
The press is also in a position of responsibility, and as such should have some restrictions put on it. The press should not be allowed to claim that there is no war in Syria, for example.
You say that this is a slippery slope, and that's true. But the alternative is living in a society where the public is critically misinformed, which is already happening in many parts of the US. Just look at this election cycle. Lies and deceit on both sides, because facts don't matter anymore.
Free market part
completely free markets do not work the way you intend them to.
if there is no governmental control, there will be cartels, fraud, environmental damage, monopolies, collusion, the list goes on...
The reason why a true free market has never been attempted because the idea is absolutely ludicrous. Who stops companies to dump their toxic waste in rivers to save costs? Think about it. this already happens in countries where there is too little governmental control to stop it. The same companies also exploit their workers because there is no authority to stop it.
Complete and utter freedom doesn't necessarily mean chaos, but people will find ways to exploit it in the most spectacular fashion, and it will be to your very detriment. History has shown that, if you look at the third world you can see it live in action. The thing that sets the first world apart from the third is functioning governments that take care of their citizens. The more the US backpaddles on this, the more it starts to look like a third world country.
Facts part
Yes, creationism should not be taught in school. its not education, but harmful ideologist indoctrination. Being skeptical is not the same as being stupid, B1rd. if you think we can teach children creationism for reasons of skepticism, you do not know what skepticism means. Religious freedom my ass. i am glad bullshit like Scientology is banned in Germany.
Evolution and climate change are facts. This is not something to argue about. The world isn't 6000 years old, hence it should not be taught. Facts are important, the truth is important. if an educational system compromises the truth for the sake of religious freedom, it is doomed.
''Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."[/i] -Benjamin Franklin
what a nice blanket statement from a guy who lived in a time far less complex than ours.
Do whatever the fuck you want man. You have no idea how the economy works if you claim that it can do without regulation. You say evolution isn't a fact. You say indoctrination is just people having different views from other people. im glad that i don't live in a country where there are many crazies like you.
its insane how you mistrust the government so much when it is currently doing an excellent job at making sure that your ceiling isn't made of asbestos, your drinking water doesn't contain lead, your working hours don't exceed a reasonable amount, and your neighbour doesn't shoot you.
i kinda wish for you to be transported back to the 16th century, where governmental regulations were basically nonexistent. im sure you'd that a lot. Surely, private businessmen are more trustworthy than a modern government. You'll be treated well by them! Yay for the free market with absolutely nothing to prevent people from fucking each other over!
the value of free speech means that you can speak your mind without having to fear governmental persecution.
Medical misconduct is an example of free speech being limited, because the doctor lying (sir, you don't have cancer after all!) will lead to him serving prison time. The doctor is not at all free to say what he pleases because he is in a position of medical responsibility. His free speech is limited, and everyone would agree that a limit is useful in this case.
One can agree that limits like this are useful while still supporting the general concept of free speech.
The press is also in a position of responsibility, and as such should have some restrictions put on it. The press should not be allowed to claim that there is no war in Syria, for example.
You say that this is a slippery slope, and that's true. But the alternative is living in a society where the public is critically misinformed, which is already happening in many parts of the US. Just look at this election cycle. Lies and deceit on both sides, because facts don't matter anymore.
Free market part
completely free markets do not work the way you intend them to.
if there is no governmental control, there will be cartels, fraud, environmental damage, monopolies, collusion, the list goes on...
The reason why a true free market has never been attempted because the idea is absolutely ludicrous. Who stops companies to dump their toxic waste in rivers to save costs? Think about it. this already happens in countries where there is too little governmental control to stop it. The same companies also exploit their workers because there is no authority to stop it.
Complete and utter freedom doesn't necessarily mean chaos, but people will find ways to exploit it in the most spectacular fashion, and it will be to your very detriment. History has shown that, if you look at the third world you can see it live in action. The thing that sets the first world apart from the third is functioning governments that take care of their citizens. The more the US backpaddles on this, the more it starts to look like a third world country.
Facts part
Yes, creationism should not be taught in school. its not education, but harmful ideologist indoctrination. Being skeptical is not the same as being stupid, B1rd. if you think we can teach children creationism for reasons of skepticism, you do not know what skepticism means. Religious freedom my ass. i am glad bullshit like Scientology is banned in Germany.
Evolution and climate change are facts. This is not something to argue about. The world isn't 6000 years old, hence it should not be taught. Facts are important, the truth is important. if an educational system compromises the truth for the sake of religious freedom, it is doomed.
''Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."[/i] -Benjamin Franklin
what a nice blanket statement from a guy who lived in a time far less complex than ours.
Do whatever the fuck you want man. You have no idea how the economy works if you claim that it can do without regulation. You say evolution isn't a fact. You say indoctrination is just people having different views from other people. im glad that i don't live in a country where there are many crazies like you.
its insane how you mistrust the government so much when it is currently doing an excellent job at making sure that your ceiling isn't made of asbestos, your drinking water doesn't contain lead, your working hours don't exceed a reasonable amount, and your neighbour doesn't shoot you.
i kinda wish for you to be transported back to the 16th century, where governmental regulations were basically nonexistent. im sure you'd that a lot. Surely, private businessmen are more trustworthy than a modern government. You'll be treated well by them! Yay for the free market with absolutely nothing to prevent people from fucking each other over!
Railey I like you again 
Or 1930s Germany, he'd love that tooRailey2 wrote:
i kinda wish for you to be transported back to the 16th century