hate thread

[xsecx]

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

And even that's not the full context of what was being discussed. The context was that the person who did the editing owned the resource and therefore was in a position to be able to edit it. They could, because they had a right to. So how is it a bad argument? how do they not have a right to?

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.

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.

The concept of moral absolutism doesn't really have a baring on what's being discussed here. You tend to use extreme examples rather than talking about what's actually being discussed, which in this case is essentially freedom of speech and how that "freedom" is at odds with how a person decides to use their own resources. In this case, the law really is the right that matters since it's not about what you or I subjectively thinks about right or wrong.

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"

You agree that what the law says does not make what is right (like right thing to do) correct?

In some cases, like rights within a society, yes, the law actually dictates that. You may believe that you have the right to take whatever you want. What you think is a right doesn't really have any baring to the rest of society, that's the reason we have laws, because not everyone's morality is the same and that morality changes through time.

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.

So you think that someone should be able to discriminate and not have any repercussions beyond conversations?

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.

So you concede that people have the right to remove someone from their property if they are upset by what the person is saying. How is a webspace different from a homespace? Why shouldn't the person be able to edit it, if they feel that it isn't true, isn't fair, etc?

[DaveisHardcore]

Woah, I'm way too late to join in with this conversation...

[xVeganAnarchistx]

But i have read the whole thing, and that statement jarred me as soon as i saw it. thats why i was clearing it up. I knew the context but the argument still seems to be cause she can she has a right to. i think we've cleared that up now though.

when i say right i am talking about philosophical rights unless otherwise stated. Thats the conversation i am interested in.

And even that's not the full context of what was being discussed. The context was that the person who did the editing owned the resource and therefore was in a position to be able to edit it. They could, because they had a right to. So how is it a bad argument? how do they not have a right to?

I don't think owning the resource necessarily gives them the right to edit it. The legally recognized ownership of something doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want with it. i think you need a better argument than that, perhaps more specific to why webspace ownership should give you the right to do whatever you want with it. I think they might not have a right to because it infringes on a more important right such as free speech. You may value your webspace more than freedom of speech, but i feel like the more important of the two rights (dominion of your webspace or freedom of speech) is the freedom of speech.

The concept of moral absolutism doesn't really have a baring on what's being discussed here. You tend to use extreme examples rather than talking about what's actually being discussed, which in this case is essentially freedom of speech and how that "freedom" is at odds with how a person decides to use their own resources. In this case, the law really is the right that matters since it's not about what you or I subjectively thinks about right or wrong.

see i think the important things are what we see as right or wrong in the philosophical context. the law is just a rough estimation of what the ruling classes value, whether that class be very small like in a monarchy or even quite large like in a republic.

In some cases, like rights within a society, yes, the law actually dictates that. You may believe that you have the right to take whatever you want. What you think is a right doesn't really have any baring to the rest of society, that's the reason we have laws, because not everyone's morality is the same and that morality changes through time.

So you think that someone should be able to discriminate and not have any repercussions beyond conversations?

Well i guess i don't buy this social contract idea, i certainly would not have given up many of my natural rights for this shit. But since i understand the argument, and see laws as a rule of thumb for whats okay, though in many cases extremely off base (slavery etc...). But so crucial dude doesn't have a right to an honest representation of his conversation, that doesn't mean he shouldn't, that seems like the more important point in my opinion anyway. We can figure out what the law might mean in most cases, but what should it say on a subject seems like the really important thing.

So you concede that people have the right to remove someone from their property if they are upset by what the person is saying. How is a webspace different from a homespace? Why shouldn't the person be able to edit it, if they feel that it isn't true, isn't fair, etc?

I believe that they should have a right to remove people from their homes (honestly who "owns" the property is really irrelevant to me). But that's because i think a comfortable and safe space is really important. We should have somewhere where we can drop all the baggage of society and the drama of our lives. This cooling off space will allow us to have intellectual debates about issues like racism or whatever without having to always turn to physical violence.

And obviously, if someone's actually threatening your physical well beings you can use force to get them to back off. But that you could do on their property too.

[xsecx]

I don't think owning the resource necessarily gives them the right to edit it. The legally recognized ownership of something doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want with it. i think you need a better argument than that, perhaps more specific to why webspace ownership should give you the right to do whatever you want with it. I think they might not have a right to because it infringes on a more important right such as free speech. You may value your webspace more than freedom of speech, but i feel like the more important of the two rights (dominion of your webspace or freedom of speech) is the freedom of speech.

It does and it does. That's the entire point of ownership. By owning it, you get to decide how it's used. The bigger question here is why do you think that freedom of speech trumps the right of the owner to use their stuff as they see fit? When using someone ELSE's resource you don't have the expectation of free speech.

see i think the important things are what we see as right or wrong in the philosophical context. the law is just a rough estimation of what the ruling classes value, whether that class be very small like in a monarchy or even quite large like in a republic.

And in this case, it decides what someone can and can't do. What you think is right or wrong isn't relevant.

Well i guess i don't buy this social contract idea, i certainly would not have given up many of my natural rights for this shit. But since i understand the argument, and see laws as a rule of thumb for whats okay, though in many cases extremely off base (slavery etc...). But so crucial dude doesn't have a right to an honest representation of his conversation, that doesn't mean he shouldn't, that seems like the more important point in my opinion anyway. We can figure out what the law might mean in most cases, but what should it say on a subject seems like the really important thing.

your concept of natural rights don't really mean anything outside of your legal rights. you can talk about how it's your right to do something, but if the state doesn't agree, you don't really have any recourse and that's why in this situation it's kind of pointless to bring it up. The dude doesn't have an expectation of free speech when using someone else's resource. I haven't seen anything from you that talks about why he should.

I believe that they should have a right to remove people from their homes (honestly who "owns" the property is really irrelevant to me). But that's because i think a comfortable and safe space is really important. We should have somewhere where we can drop all the baggage of society and the drama of our lives. This cooling off space will allow us to have intellectual debates about issues like racism or whatever without having to always turn to physical violence.

And obviously, if someone's actually threatening your physical well beings you can use force to get them to back off. But that you could do on their property too.

So why would this concept not apply to someone's webspace?

[mouseman004]

I hate when the professor who convinces me to go to a certain school tells me he is too busy to supervise my thesis.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

I hate when the professor who convinces me to go to a certain school tells me he is too busy to supervise my thesis.

ouch!

[mouseman004]

When it is 1am and I am finishing up the final touches on a 2000 word paper that is due at 9:30, and then suddenly my paper disappears. I hate technology.

[xsecx]

When it is 1am and I am finishing up the final touches on a 2000 word paper that is due at 9:30, and then suddenly my paper disappears. I hate technology.

that's ass dude. I hope you got it worked out in time.

[Lifestyle_X]

When it is 1am and I am finishing up the final touches on a 2000 word paper that is due at 9:30, and then suddenly my paper disappears. I hate technology.

How did it work out ? If you have that problem again, maybe you can use recovery software ?

[mouseman004]

that's ass dude. I hope you got it worked out in time.

Thanks man. I somehow managed to pump out another 2000 words between 1am and 9am. It isn't a good essay, but I am just happy I was able to get it finished. At this point I have been awake since 7am yesterday.

How did it work out ? If you have that problem again, maybe you can use recovery software ?

I was able to re-write it mostly by memory. I tried using recovery software but it was as if my essay was never there. Weird.

[Lifestyle_X]

Thanks man. I somehow managed to pump out another 2000 words between 1am and 9am. It isn't a good essay, but I am just happy I was able to get it finished. At this point I have been awake since 7am yesterday.

What ?! You're crazy man ! I'm so glad to hear that you wrote another one in just 8 hours !!

I was able to re-write it mostly by memory. I tried using recovery software but it was as if my essay was never there. Weird.

This is the best thing ever. For real !

[xsecx]

i'm hating this time change and going home in the dark. sunset at 5pm is bullshit.

[rodrigo]

i'm hating this time change and going home in the dark. sunset at 5pm is bullshit.

that's rough, we usually have it around 6 or 7 in winter, i can imagine it sucking balls.

[xsecx]

that's rough, we usually have it around 6 or 7 in winter, i can imagine it sucking balls.

when we go over to england for christmas shit sets at 3:30. that's brutal.

[xVeganAnarchistx]

yea i hate this darkness crap. tractors got lights