Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    What?!? You are a very confused boy.
    You are the confused one, dear.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prad)
    You know as well as I do that there are times when it's better not to say anything.

    This does not justify takeing away right to offend someone.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    This does not justify takeing away right to offend someone.
    Okay - fair enough. You can offend someone, but you risk getting a punch in the face.

    At the end of the day - we can all do pretty much what we like.. other people may not like it, but that doesn't stop it from being. Additionally, we all have to take the consequences of our actions. If you don't like the consequences, then don't perform the action.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    This does not justify takeing away right to offend someone.
    And your moral ******** does not justify the right to neg rep someone. And I believe it is right to do so. If you like something, you pos rep it. If you don't like it, you neg rep it. You keep on harping about how "morally" wrong it is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    And your moral ******** does not justify the right to neg rep someone. And I believe it is right to do so. If you like something, you pos rep it. If you don't like it, you neg rep it. You keep on harping about how "morally" wrong it is.
    Your not providing an argument here, just claims and telling me what i already know.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Your not providing an argument here, just claims and telling me what i already know.
    I'm sorry, I forgot, you are the only one who can argue. :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    I'm sorry, I forgot, you are the only one who can argue. :rolleyes:

    Now you are just resorting to ad homeniem attacks. This shows how weak your views are.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Guys - chillax.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Now you are just resorting to ad homeniem attacks. This shows how weak your views are.
    I just can't be bothered to repeat the same things over and over again. Good luck with your warped views in the real world.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    I just can't be bothered to repeat the same things over and over again. Good luck with your warped views in the real world.

    You simly have not thought out your views. In fact i think you agree with what i say you simply want an argument for the sake of arguing. How pathetic. I think you'll find many will defend the right to offend in the real world.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well you've both given fine examples of offending.. so I guess it's not really off-topic at all..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    You simly have not thought out your views. In fact i think you agree with what i say you simply want an argument for the sake of arguing. How pathetic. I think you'll find many will defend the right to offend in the real world.
    I didn't say they wouldn't. And I have consistently said that I don't think there is anything wrong with being offensive. What I am arguing is about is your claim of it being "morally" wrong to punish someone for being offensive. But you bring out your crap about morality every time something doesn't suit you. That won't work in the real world, which is governed by laws - which have to be followed regardless of whether you like them or not.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't say they wouldn't. But you bring out your crap about morality every time something doesn't suit you.
    Excuse me for having morals.

    That won't work in the real world, which is governed by laws - which have to be followed regardless of whether you like them or not.

    And what decides those laws? Morals.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Excuse me for having morals.
    You are excused :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zaf1986)
    You are excused :rolleyes:

    Thanks :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    But in terms of being rational and moral this is wrong. Just because one has the right does not mean one should use it.
    The only moral duty is to do what makes you happy. If registering your unhappiness with someone else's comment makes you happy, do it. You taught me that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    The only moral duty is to do what makes you happy. If registering your unhappiness with someone else's comment makes you happy, do it. You taught me that.

    Well you have completely misunderstood me. I'd quite like to kill alot of people, but i would not do it, even if i could get away with it. Why? Because it is irrational. How could i defend life (my life) if i had such little regard for it. Likewise it is irrational to punsih someone for being offended as it means that someone can punish you for being offended. Thus it leads to the supression of free speech, for example, laws on what you can say in regards to race.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by objectivism)
    Well you have completely misunderstood me. I'd quite like to kill alot of people, but i would not do it, even if i could get away with it. Why? Because it is irrational. How could i defend life (my life) if i had such little regard for it. Likewise it is irrational to punsih someone for being offended as it means that someone can punish you for being offended. Thus it leads to the supression of free speech, for example, laws on what you can say in regards to race.
    You're getting a bit confused there. It's rational to kill irritants if you can gey away with it. The connection to a subsequent loss of commitment to preserving your own life is dramatic, even gay. Killers often value their own welfare above all else.

    Your free speech argument is solid as a rock - for the powerless. Now convince the powerful.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You're getting a bit confused there. It's rational to kill irritants if you can gey away with it. The connection to a subsequent loss of commitment to preserving your own life is dramatic, even gay. Killers often value their own welfare above all else.
    But they are not valuing their own welfare, that is my point. What their actions do is give a green light to a state of nature. Also it is not dramatic it is a moral position. I think your confused, and i don;t know why you use the word 'gay'. What's wrong with being gay?

    Your free speech argument is solid as a rock - for the powerless. Now convince the powerful.
    Explain.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Straight Talker)
    That makes no sense, speak ENGLISH :stupid:
    I understood Prad's observation perfectly. Are you being deliberately offensive?
 
 
 

1,063

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.