Cantousent

I really don't find myself trying to enrol folks at a message board, but we're discussing freedom of speech over at Tarna's new message board. We all like the guy [i [b]will[/b] flame folks who speak ill of tarna :Eldar's evil grin icon:] and he wants to have something a bit more edgy. Anyhow, Fio's been a regular over there and you're more likely to get a view of his idea of message board policies than here. So, come and participate in the thread over there. Also, it has a genuine YoP forum. It's back to the old days. No more serious stuff. We're back to the real thing. Ye Olde Pages.... http://www.tarna.us/viewtopic.php?t=7

Welcome back. You have my prayers but, should you desire, you may consider them my well wishes instead. :Eldar's slapping meta on the back and offering him a cold mead icon:

Oh, but there are some wonderful French people out there. Apparently, they won't be smoking much longer, but they're still great.

That's not just silly. It's scary.

Now this was total comedy. No, really Vol, that was quite clever. hahahaha

It's a mania to get rid of cigarettes. I predict that, in ten to twenty years, columbia will be cultivating more tobaco than pot and coke combined! :D http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/...0202&ID=5471467

What a silly bunch we are. However, I'm glad to hear that the WotC praise is more than mere lip service. I can't really complain about your absence from this thread since you didn't really say much at the NWN2 forum when Gromnir started the topic there. I'm happy to have some hope that WotC might be loosening its grip on DnD, even if only in some areas.

The point is that laws change. So, my position leaves "questionable" or "offensive" material out of the mix. I mean, you guys still haven't gotten it through your heads that I'm championing freedom of speech. What I say is that I find the material objectionable, but that "objectionable" is not sufficient to censor the speech. Essentially, I've said, from the very first post I made in the first Freedom of Speech thread, that freedom of speech trumps most considerations. That includes intentionally offensive references to religious leaders. EDIT: I was going to PM this, but I might as well post it in this thread. I was never terribly upset about the Jesus picture, Lonewolf. I thought it was *ugh* oh so bad, but I figured you were just making a joke. Like Muslims, Christians must be willing to pick and choose battles. We can't get angry at every offense or we'll merely provide ammunition to folks who already dislike or hate us.

Yeah, but we do limit freedom of speech. The question is, where do we draw the line?

"I thought they were deliberately provocative and therefore very impolite." The irony. You have just recaptured, Jediphile, my stance from the very begining.

So there is no line and we can say or do whatever we please, you numbered swine? There is a line of decency. That line might change as society changes, but it exists none-the-less. Furthermore, a Muslim can argue that the cartoon in question is harmful to children. To whit, their children. This shifting sands and the jihad against political correctness is a load of crap. Just because some people take political correctness too far doesn't mean that we should not treat each other with respect or that decency is a meaningless term. Do the offended Muslims need to grow a thicker skin? Undoubtedly so. Maybe they're getting a little idea of what it's like to have someone burn your flag in protest. Nevertheless, their need for a thicker skin does not, somehow, make the cartoon a tasteful way to express the point. Certainly, the fact that many's the jackass believes it to be true does not make it so. [since my numbered friend is playing nice, the cosmic balance demands I take his place]

I like a good dungeon hack as much as the next guy. I'll be glad to give it a shot.

That review was funny and accurate, but it was a terrible review. Reviews should not be hateful. Of course, Weiser manages to bring a lot of this stuff on himself, but still...

snap The fact that we are even pondering these questions is sad proof as to the weak moral state we live in, now. Or maybe not, as we will go as far as re-examining the validity of such strongly rooted ideas such as freedom of speech and press, and weight them against... what? Tradition, ignorance, and intolerance. Again, the irony. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I didn't pondering anything, dammit. I've said, from the first to the last that I freedom of speech must win the day. There's never been pondering. Hell, I've seen Jesus parodied in a snickers commercial and I never said that the person in question (thanks, Lonewolf) should be reprimanded on the board or denied the right to post. Still, I will contend that it is offensive to ridicule and deride someone's beleifs in such a manner. Using Jesus in a parody of a snickers comercial is in poor taste. Like porn, I can't describe it in advance but I can sure as hell spot it when I see it. All the arguments you can cite regarding taste and what is or is not offensive, how such things change over time, are irrelevant. A survey would probably show the majority of Europeans find the material offensive to some degree. If you think about it, however, my argument is stronger for accepting that the images are offensive. Because I argue that Freedom of Speech rules even when the content is offensive. There must be something more involved. The laws regarding pornography restrict it, but it is still possible to access porn. So, by your standard, we could just get enough people to agree it's offensive to have the Cartoon in question censored. That's not enough. So, I'll just say that even if the item is offensive, there must be some greater reason for it to be censored.

So do I.

ATI is easy. Just go to: https://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894 You can contact folks from there or just go through the self help areas.

zing

Sounds like Fallout 3 rumors.

comedy. Still, someone would carricature the image anyhow.

Yeah, but people go out of their way to insult specific religions or religion in general all the time. The question isn't whether the cartoon was distasteful. The question is whether the paper has the right to print the cartoon. ...And if you bow down to Muslim anger on this issue, you've got a lot of other religions to placate as well. There are two arguments here. The first revolves on the nature of the cartoon. Was it distasteful? Was it wrongminded? Should we condemn it? I think all three statements are reasonable. The second revolves around the right of the paper to print the article. Should the government forbid the cartoon or censure the paper? The answer is a resounding "NO!"

heh. That was weird, my reply got the chop. Anyhow, I only clicked twice before I figured that was the joke. Since the punchline wouldn't be worth clicking 50 times, I'll take your word for it that it's lame. The whole idea sounds pretty lame to me.

Ah, good point, Darque. Give yourself twenty-five TOMBS points. I'd give them to you myself, but I do it so rarely I've forgotten how. At any rate, that would make a lot of sense, but it doesn't clear up anything about the ever elusive PNJ. Maybe it's a peanut butter and jelly simulation.

Have you guys considered that maybe project one and project two change as the products move from design to the shelves? huh? Smarty-pants!

Mothman, you're actually quite a good at these reviews. Don't let these chimps bother you.

Hey, if you can't cite an existing source, it's all hearsay. :Eldar's tongue in cheek icon: