213374U

Putting people in death camps IS illegitimate... as it's against any number of laws both local and international. But that's an act, not an idea. The idea is "all black people must die". If suppression is the first (and best) way of dealing with that sort of crap in a society that prides itself in its "freedom"... well, I can only shake my head in shame. Being wrong in any context, by itself, cannot be a crime. Acting on those wrong beliefs or ideas may be. Yeah, ok. What's hate? What is conducive to hate? If hate is a byproduct of simply exposing facts, is that propaganda and must be eliminated as well? And most importantly, who are we going to trust with the responsibility of safeguarding our intellectual hygiene? Easier said than done man, and the potential for abuse is far in excess of the advantages it may bring.

You are just bitter because she beat up your dad.

And that, folks, is a textbook application of our patented "How to discredit anyone, anywhere, anytime"® method! Just follow these easy steps: 1. Buzzword 2. Mischaracterization 3. ???? 4. PROFIT!!!

You really can't live without LoF, can you?

Okay, explain to me how that relates to the discussion we're having, because you have managed to lose me. Seriously, I don't think we're arguing the same thing. You are trying to establish a connection between "targeting illegitimate weapon sales is perfectly fair" and "therefore targeting illegitimate ideas should be too, since they are a necessary component in hate-induced violence". I'm saying that that is a sophism, as there are no illegitimate ideas. Only wrong ideas. The a difference between the two is deeper than semantics - it rules out any state interdiction. Unless being wrong is a crime? You are grasping at straws, and you know it. You don't eliminate the oxygen in the air everywhere to prevent fire and explosions. You do so in certain, very specific circumstances. Just like you don't allow political displays in a certain few cases (such as the military). You are arguing against propaganda (a certain rationale) across the board... the equivalent of banning oxygen. What I want to know is what is your threshold for "targeting propaganda"? Be as specific as you can, please. And tell me how'd we go about dealing with it, as well.

How do you "target" rationales, hmm? Weapons, you can ban, jail those who sell them, whatever. It's pretty simple. Ideas, on the other hand are a much more difficult component to root out, and it's extremely easy to go overboard. Propaganda is often based on outright falsehood, but not always. The difference between hateful propaganda and inflammatory political discourse is a matter of pov, in many cases. And who are going to appoint to tell which pov is the right one? Or do we rely on "consensus"? Bah. Once the fire is on, it may be a good idea to choke it out. But it's a pretty stupid idea to try and eliminate the oxygen in the air to prevent fires.

Okay, I admit I know jack about CSA flags, but the article does mention the "Stars and Bars" flag. And according to Wiki, the Stars and Bars is the flag you posted - not St. Andrew's Cross or whatever. edit: I'm an idiot. I hadn't checked the link, just read the excerpt you postred.

Heh, that's not what I meant. I was thinking of people with severe genetic diseases and/or reproductive impairments having children by any means possible, and children with life-threatening congenital problems that would otherwise be inviable being kept alive through artificial means. They used to drop "bad" infants down a cliff back in Sparta, and we've gone to the extreme opposite. And don't even get me started on women that become pregnant at 50 thanks to fertility treatments. I meant it has become a "right" in the sense that people seem to have a sense of entitlement with consumption products and welfare policies. Ask any teenager these days, they'd rather DIE than have their phones taken from them. We have, for all intents and purposes, killed natural selection. On an individual level at least. Yeah, but why would anyone want to sire a relatively large offspring? I'm not even talking Genghis Khan-level here, but seriously, 10+ children? There aren't any advantages to having that many children today.

He's so dreamy!

Be careful who you say that around... it's now considered a "right" to have babies. As for the "good" mutations propagating down the line and becoming dominant... I doubt it's significant even when they afford huge advantages, as you comment. Not with condoms. And on the other hand, I used to be a sperm donor. Can you believe it? Little old me. I don't even want to think how many children I must have "fathered" by now. Poor bastards.

A clever way of putting it. Without propaganda, there can be no hate-induced violence. However, propaganda itself is not violence (and therefore cannot be considered part) - and the jump from one to another is neither automatic nor trivial. It is, in fact, the circumstances that allow for propaganda to be widespread and believable, coupled with ignorance, that lead to violence. For a similarly equivocating effect I could just as easily say that air is as much a part of an arsonist's arsenal as gas.

So you could be a rules lawyer?

You sure you can't uninstall the patch from the CP? I haven't tried myself, but the option appears to be there.

And your point is? That the Australian democratic community is a shining example of how democracy is infallible? Get over yourself. I asked for French chauvinism, not Australian. rofl You are big on freedoms when you are big on freedoms. Either you support personal choice as far as political outlook goes, or you don't, it's that simple. Funny that you are quick to remark how others are not "all that special", and yet you feel qualified to establish which personal freedoms "make sense" and which don't. I mean, it's so obvious, you don't even need to explain yourself. Yes, I see the problem now. I think personal freedoms take precedence over the efficiency of any given political system. Apparently, it's the other way around for you. You mean it's not coercion from the state? Then what is it, pray tell?

Actually, it does. I'm guessing Lare either ran into a bug or is having trouble with the "AP ammo damage fix" component of the patch. (Un)install that and see what happens?

By itself, that means very little. Just that people won't always follow the most charismatic leader, but that's hardly news. You are not big on individual freedoms and tolerance, are you?

Boredom?

Agreed. I can't help but wonder, though: is that a sad fact of life or merely a consequence of thought railroading and opinion manipulation? Stuff like censorship is actually conducive to widespread stupidification. It is through analysis that truth is uncovered. In a world where childhood heroes range from Captain Testosterone to Crynaldo, critical thinking is not something that's exactly encouraged. But to what extent is that encouraged and promoted, really? It seems we have learned nothing. Or a lot, depending on your perspective. And that's why they are so useful. Emotions are much easier to manipulate than reason. No government would ever have reason to outlaw those when it could harness them.

Well, showing that somebody is a complete idiot is a much more useful and effective way of dealing with cranks than simply silencing or jailing them. That has more like the opposite effect - as evidenced by this thread. Of course, that doesn't work so well when the opponent has a valid point... or there's mostly complete idiots listening, to begin with.

So, if we can't trust ideologies to work as intended... are we just making up stuff as we go? Sounds like fun.

No, there should not. Why should some opinions be censored? If I hate Jews, why do I have to hide myself? Aren't there safeguards in place to prevent hate speech from becoming hate crimes? Or does censoring hateful opinions somehow solve the problem (of hate)? What good is censorship, anyway?

Wow, mildly pungent sarcasm. You're making progress, but you're not there quite yet. Hence my comment of him being a mediocre comedian. There really is nothing to agree or disagree with, because it's meant to be a humorous remark, not a political statement or scientific finding. The intent, I'm guessing, is to rustle the feathers of the PC idiots by using their own talk against them, and be funny at the same time. C&B, though.

**** yeah! Ideologues: a clever quote for every situation. On a somewhat more serious note, though, Marx's stuff sounds good too... on paper.

I think you need to read the OP again - it is obviously a jab at the pervasive notion that suicide and alcoholism are inherent to Scandinavian culture. And do get a sense of humour while you're at it. The most he can be accused of is of being a mediocre comedian. "Hate", rofl.

So, money = freedom?