It seemed to me as if you were suggesting this in the previous post of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
Why don't I?
Printable View
It seemed to me as if you were suggesting this in the previous post of yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
Why don't I?
in what part?Quote:
Originally Posted by xCrucialDudex
because you're complaining about someone censoring you, so clearly you don't. So why do you think you do?Quote:
Why don't I?
Where you say it's not a public space at all. Is there really a private webspace at all? If it's a text file on a server that isn't available neither via HTTP nor FTP/shell than it is... more or less private. A Facebook, forum blog module and such aren't really a private webspace. They have an element of privacy, yes, but ultimately all these communications mediums are geared towards someone out there - a visitor, viewer and they have support for comments for a reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
Someone censored me not as much because they have a right to do so but because they were able to do that.Quote:
because you're complaining about someone censoring you, so clearly you don't. So why do you think you do?
When one imagines a similar situation in RL it becomes extremely ridiculous. Suppose I said to you right in the face you're a douchebag. It's done. No Remove/Delete button. You might be able to prevent the following communication but in most cases I can see this happening only through violation of my rights for free speech.
Anyway, what is the point in censoring unless it's hate speech or something of that kind of sort? All I see in reality is people just get insecure and paranoid and try to escape the reality by indulging in seemingly controllable nature of the Internet medium.
Yes they are in fact private. You may not think that they are, but they are in fact owned and controlled by someone, and that someone gets to decide what is and what isn't appropriate for that resource. If you don't like, it then don't use it and make something new, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the person/company/thing that owns that website has the right to control what content is put out on it's resources.Quote:
Originally Posted by xCrucialDudex
Because they were able to, means they have a right to.Quote:
Someone censored me not as much because they have a right to do so but because they were able to do that.
That's not comparing the same thing. The issue is where and how you're making the statement, not the statement itself. It's like saying that it's ok to write on someone house that they are a douche bag and you getting upset when they paint over it.Quote:
When one imagines a similar situation in RL it becomes extremely ridiculous. Suppose I said to you right in the face you're a douchebag. It's done. No Remove/Delete button. You might be able to prevent the following communication but in most cases I can see this happening only through violation of my rights for free speech.
That's a different discussion. your right to free speech isn't the same as you thinking you have the right to say whatever you want wherever you want.Quote:
Anyway, what is the point in censoring unless it's hate speech or something of that kind of sort? All I see in reality is people just get insecure and paranoid and try to escape the reality by indulging in seemingly controllable nature of the Internet medium.
"Because they were able to, means they have a right to. "
that seems kinda fucked up, perhaps i'm getting this out of context, but being able (as in having the ability to) to do something does not make it something you have a right to.
"That's not comparing the same thing. The issue is where and how you're making the statement, not the statement itself. It's like saying that it's ok to write on someone house that they are a douche bag and you getting upset when they paint over it. "
this is very funny, i don't know how well it relates but i laughed none the less. i think its just weird medium and i don't know where i stand on internet versus real life speech, it gets fucked up, despite my believing im an advocate for free speech. i'd certainly prefer that people didn't delete or remove comments in order to make something seems more acceptable, or look better on themselves. Do they have i right though? i guess you and crucial dude need to flesh it out more.
If it's my resource, that I own/pay for/etc. I get to decide what goes there. If someone is able to edit someone elses words, because it's on their resources, then they absolutely have a right to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeganAnarchistx
Even real life free speech has limits. You have freedom of speech in public places, not private ones. If you come into someones house and start calling them an asshole, the owner has the right to kick you out. Now, you do it on a public street, and there's nothing he can do. That's the fundamental difference we're talking about here. This isn't about a free speech, it's about a misconception that free speech is universal and applies to anything you say, anywhere you say it and that simply isn't the case.Quote:
this is very funny, i don't know how well it relates but i laughed none the less. i think its just weird medium and i don't know where i stand on internet versus real life speech, it gets fucked up, despite my believing im an advocate for free speech. i'd certainly prefer that people didn't delete or remove comments in order to make something seems more acceptable, or look better on themselves. Do they have i right though? i guess you and crucial dude need to flesh it out more.
ok thats different than anything you have the ability to do is something you have a right to. i mean i still have disagreements about what you have a right to do even on "your" property or with said property but that's a different discussion. I can assume that even if you are comfortable with property rights pretty much as they are now, you still think their are some things one cannot do with one's property or on one's property right?Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
but their is certianly a disagreement of how and wear is applies, and to what extents. We might both admit that free speech of teachers is limited, but i might want to grant them a much broader freedom of speech on school grounds than you or vice versa. So crucial dude can still thinks its bullshit that this person deletes the posts (or even think they have no right to) while still agreeing that we the "non-owners" of a piece of property still don't have full rights there.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
This is why the term "ability to do" in this instance is that same as "are within your legal rights to do". If it's someone's resource, and they're not breaking any kind of law, how are you in a position to tell that person what they can't and can't do with that resource?Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeganAnarchistx
You're mixing public and private and it doesn't necessarily make sense to. If you accept that you don't have a right to free speech in all locations, then you can't claim that your right to free speech has been violated.Quote:
but their is certianly a disagreement of how and wear is applies, and to what extents. We might both admit that free speech of teachers is limited, but i might want to grant them a much broader freedom of speech on school grounds than you or vice versa. So crucial dude can still thinks its bullshit that this person deletes the posts (or even think they have no right to) while still agreeing that we the "non-owners" of a piece of property still don't have full rights there.
so do you or do you not think you "have the right to do whatever you have the ability to do"Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
i'm a little confused by your last statement
What i was saying is that crucial dude can still thinks its bullshit that someone deletes his posts even if they have a right to do it. And more controversially he can disagree about whether they should even have that right.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
we might disagree with him but i think the argument that whatever (human) person or corporation that owns a piece of land or electronic property can do whatever they want on said land or property is not a good argument. We could think of at least a few examples of where property rights do not trump other rights. And we can probably find a few example we disagree about too!
I thought it was pretty clear. If someone is within their legal rights to do so, and have the ability to do it, then yes, they do. That being said,how are you in a position to tell that person what they can't and can't do with their own resources?Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeganAnarchistx
How is it not a good argument? The concept of free speech isn't a universal one and only applies to public things, not private things. You don't have an expectation of free speech when making statements on private property. At any point in time, the land owner can ask you to leave if they don't like what you're saying and there's nothing you can do about it. You can get upset about it. You can think it's unfair but it doesn't take away from the rights of the owner to remove you. The flip side of this however is that you're pretty much free to do whatever you want on your own resources. That's the trade off. You want total freedom, then it has to come on your own back.Quote:
What i was saying is that crucial dude can still thinks its bullshit that someone deletes his posts even if they have a right to do it. And more controversially he can disagree about whether they should even have that right.
we might disagree with him but i think the argument that whatever (human) person or corporation that owns a piece of land or electronic property can do whatever they want on said land or property is not a good argument. We could think of at least a few examples of where property rights do not trump other rights. And we can probably find a few example we disagree about too!
yea, but you just said, if you have the ability to do so, then you have a right to. That means if i can beat you up and take your money i have a right to. Or to rape you or whatever immoral or disgusting thing we can come up with. What you said is might makes right. What you meant was different. Now we know what you mean. Of course if you have a right to and an ability to then you have a right to. I just didn't know we were starting with the right to.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
I'm saying that we might not all agree that you have no free speech on property other than your own. I certainly don't. And for me it's what is correct and what one should have a right to (philosophically) no what one DOES have a right to legally. I think teachers have some measure of free speech. I think employees have some measure of free speech, even on their employers property. If you work from some neofascist asshole and he starts calling someone who just came into the place you work at a dirty little jew or something and you call him out as a fascist and he fires your ass. I think you should be able to get your job back. I think its your right to disagree with a racist (or sexist or homophobic or whatever) employer. They have a right to spout there shit, but they don't have one to not let you respond.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
not in the context of this conversation. In this specific instance, because someone had the ability to edit/delete comments, they had the right to do so. Anything else other than within this specific context is reading into my words and putting something into it that isn't there.Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeganAnarchistx
Rights are defined legally, to speak about them in any other way doesn't make sense.Quote:
I'm saying that we might not all agree that you have no free speech on property other than your own. I certainly don't. And for me it's what is correct and what one should have a right to (philosophically) no what one DOES have a right to legally. I think teachers have some measure of free speech. I think employees have some measure of free speech, even on their employers property. If you work from some neofascist asshole and he starts calling someone who just came into the place you work at a dirty little jew or something and you call him out as a fascist and he fires your ass. I think you should be able to get your job back. I think its your right to disagree with a racist (or sexist or homophobic or whatever) employer. They have a right to spout there shit, but they don't have one to not let you respond.
So you don't think that racists/sexists/homophobes have a right to say whatever they want? In your example, why would you challenge the asshole if everyone has a right to free speech?
I mean, what you're talking about does demonstrate that not all speech is protected, but it's also not really what's being discussed here. If someone wants to put up a bunch of signs on their property that are racist/sexist/homophobic, it's their right to. You may not agree with it, but it's not your right to stop their speech. What is your right is to do the opposite on your own property. We're not talking about labor practices or how things work in at will states or hostile work environments, which really are different discussions.
[QUOTE=xsecx;112251]not in the context of this conversation. In this specific instance, because someone had the ability to edit/delete comments, they had the right to do so. Anything else other than within this specific context is reading into my words and putting something into it that isn't there. [\quote]
thats exactly why i kept asking, i wanted to be clear on what you meant
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
I don't thank so. I think their are things that we cannot do to one another, or that we have a right to not be done to us, whether or not the government we live under mandates it or not. Slavery is immoral to me because its a violation of a person's right not be used as a means to an end, even if that person is less intelligent, wrong gendered or the wrong skin color, etc. I don't think its okay to rape people where the law does not prohibit it, or where their is no law at all. So i think it makes ALOT of sense to talk about rights, and the more interesting/important talks about rights are irrelevant of constitutions and law codes.
I must have been unclear, i think the employer in my scenario can spout his shit, he has a legal, and a philosophical right to. i just don't think you should have to not respond how you feel is right just cause that asshole "owns" your labor power for that hour or whatever. We should have to engage each other in discussion, not just use our might to screw people over. I would challenge him because what he says is profoundly stupid. Its founded on arbitrary criteria that don't hold up to logic. He is wrong because he is being arbitrary in his hate by hating jews cause they are jews, or black cause they are blacks or women cause they are women etc. (he could hate a particular jew for some justifiable reasons but their is no reason to hate all jews that i can think of that would be justiable)
Like creationists have a right to say their shit (philo and legally) but we can still explain why their theories of a young earth are wrong
the only confusion though is when you pulled that comment out of context.Quote:
Originally Posted by xVeganAnarchistx
But what you're talking about here aren't rights. Rights are what are defined by constitutions and law codes. Everything else is just your opinion. Since you're vegan, you can say that I don't have the right to kill an animal for food, but I do have that right. You can talk about how you think something is wrong, but that doesn't mean someone does or doesn't have the right to do something.Quote:
I don't thank so. I think their are things that we cannot do to one another, or that we have a right to not be done to us, whether or not the government we live under mandates it or not. Slavery is immoral to me because its a violation of a person's right not be used as a means to an end, even if that person is less intelligent, wrong gendered or the wrong skin color, etc. I don't think its okay to rape people where the law does not prohibit it, or where their is no law at all. So i think it makes ALOT of sense to talk about rights, and the more interesting/important talks about rights are irrelevant of constitutions and law codes.
He doesn't have a legal right though. What you described would actually be a hostile work environment and a violation of EEOC policies. But we'll talk about it anyway. You think that you should be able to say whatever you want, without the repercussions, because you have what you believe to be moral superiority in the situation. That's not really how things work. You want to be able to stand up to someone, but you don't want that person to be able to react to you in kind. You can't defend the freedom of speech but only when you're the one talking. Or when it's only about things you agree on. I would however suggest you change your example and make it more akin to what's being talked about. If you're in someone's house and the same thing happened. Do you think the homeowner shouldn't be able to kick you out?Quote:
I must have been unclear, i think the employer in my scenario can spout his shit, he has a legal, and a philosophical right to. i just don't think you should have to not respond how you feel is right just cause that asshole "owns" your labor power for that hour or whatever. We should have to engage each other in discussion, not just use our might to screw people over. I would challenge him because what he says is profoundly stupid. Its founded on arbitrary criteria that don't hold up to logic. He is wrong because he is being arbitrary in his hate by hating jews cause they are jews, or black cause they are blacks or women cause they are women etc. (he could hate a particular jew for some justifiable reasons but their is no reason to hate all jews that i can think of that would be justiable)
[QUOTE=xsecx;112253]the only confusion though is when you pulled that comment out of context. [\quote]
Quote:
crucial dude Someone censored me not as much because they have a right to do so but because they were able to do that.
you: Because they were able to, means they have a right to.
that was what you were responding too, and it still seems like a bad argument to me. because it seems like if it was a forum that just happened to have the option you have a right to do it but in a forum that doesn't (only coincidentally) then you don't have a right to. Its still kinda seems like what you can do is something you have a right to do. You don't seem to be proving why you have a right to do it, aside from the fact that you have the ability to do it. Its kinda confusing and seems like you are just saying because you have the ability to do it you have the right to do it, which as we discussed, seems like a bad argument
i guess maybe i'm bringing philosophy in here to much. Or even political science. But we use rights different then just what the law says you can do, in fact, we even say that some things the law says you can do are not things you have a right to.Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
I have a right to bodily autonomy is a pretty common belief in philosophy departments (aside from the occasional skeptic or relativist, which despite all the time we in philo spend talking about them, are extremely rare). I have a right to not be raped or enslaved comes from my right to bodily autonomy. these are things that are moral or correct irregardless of what some old or less old documents say about them. animal rights are based on ethical theories (usually, and for me, i suppose their might be other theories for it but i don't really know). These theories argue that if we look at why we really think we can't just do what we want to the mentally ill, differently-abled or the aging and senile populations has more to do with their feelings of pain and pleasure, and some sort of subjective awareness then it has to do with their intelligence or skin color or some other arbitrary reason, one that we add is species. I hate alot singer's philosophy(especially his utilitarianism) for most things but he has a great argument for sentientism and for the arbitrariness of the species cut off.
the wrongness of rape and the wrongness of young earth creationism are different, one is ethical, one is scientific. so wrong doesn't mean the same thing in both cases.
It's not about EEOC though, its about what SHOULD be the case. the EEOC can be wrong. If we would have had it back in the 1830's it probably would have talked about how slave masters should use their bosses resources (the human slaves) in ways that wouldn't really seem ok, or even relevant to us worried about what is moral or right in the sense of "the right thing to do"Quote:
Originally Posted by xsecx
You agree that what the law says does not make what is right (like right thing to do) correct?
i totally think that a racist should not get fired cause his boss has a problem with it. You should attempt to make good arguments about why racism is wrong, or find someone who can. Not just kick them out, that seems like its not going to really solve anything to me. It might even get the racist thinking that, though you disagree about race issues, you agree that who ever has the power to do something can do what they want irrelevant of morality.
I guess i'm just more interested in what the homeowner should do, the homeowner should use argument not force to make their point. But i will concede that i think homes are different than other property, and you should be comfortable at your home, racist or not. So if i'm an anti-racist in a racist home, those people CAN kick me out, and i think that furthermore they Should be ABLE to, but i think the better course of action would be to have the debate or conversation or whatever. Which is what i'm saying the lesser thing crucial dude might be arguing is. Even if that person has the right to edit their webspaces they should not do it just to make themselves seem like better people or to hide crucial dudes points or whatever. And i think that webspace is significantly different than homespace because you don't really need your facebook account like you do a comfortable home.