Lol reminds me of the matrix, thats alot of ammunition to be hauling around, anyways it wouldn't work look at a prison, your security can't get tighter than that and inmates still find places to hide things, still kill etc, the answer isn't purely about security but also about interpersonal issues.Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
Also sorry about triple post but adressing the issue itself, people should have the right to express emotion over what they want without a miserable man writing about it, though I find his bitter, harsh, and resentful approach slightly amusing in a dark kind of way. Also the reason why some people feel bad about the tragedy is essentially the idea that their is a common unity of humanity, that since we have a commonality of being the same species, working together in society, teamwork, social intelligence etc that we can easily put ourselves in other peoples shoes if only for a second. Hearing about this is tragic to some because they see a person like cho fall out of society and end his life but at the same time kill many other people almost out of the blue. People see this as a breaking of this unity of humanity and its distressing to some, thats why that guy babbled about unity, he did it in an odd way, but I am willing to bet the underlying reason the idea of unity slipped in his mind was because of this concept. People don't like to see other people suffer needlessly, period, its sad but at the same time I understand the media plays off of it for entertainment, people use it as a billboard for other issues, and others act all drudged about the event, what people need now isn't a TV news drama, isn't a cynical man, isn't people wanting to be the advocate hero for their individual quest for righteousness, isn't depressive empathy, what they need now is healing, let it be a lesson to strengthen unity, that imo is the meaning in this tragedy, tragedy teaches us where not to go, like in romeo and juliet, the whole thing is morbid where they kill each other at the end, but the lesson isn't to dwell on the death, but its the idea that the tragedy didn't have to happen, that it was stupid to have the feud. Just the same the tragedy hear teaches people something, and people are confused trying to find that......
I am also very sure people will disagree with this, and thats fine, your entitled to your opinions, I will respect your opinion, just don't go all absolutist on me and say I am way off base, its just one man's opinion.
What does that mean? They should have the right to prevent Hitchens (or anyone like him) from writing what he thinks, so that their emotional expression should not be disturbed? Is that what you're saying?
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I don't think he realizes what he's saying. Sounds like a passionate misuse of language.What does that mean? They should have the right to prevent Hitchens (or anyone like him) from writing what he thinks, so that their emotional expression should not be disturbed? Is that what you're saying?
This statement is so obviously self-contradicting that I might have to call your sanity into quesiton.people should have the right to express emotion over what they want without a miserable man writing about it
Yes, I think he didn't realize what he was saying.
Then you'd be right.
I know you sortof already said it, but I figured being explicit would at least point him in the right direction to figure out why he looks so stupid.
Did I say Hitchens was a miserable man ?? look I am talking in general here, because many people on this post are all, "oh no, this is awful people shouldn't be acting like this". Hitchens can write what he wants, but just the same people should be able to express what they want, works both ways, they should respect each others difference in opinion.What does that mean? They should have the right to prevent Hitchens (or anyone like him) from writing what he thinks, so that their emotional expression should not be disturbed? Is that what you're saying?
Now your misinterpretting my statement, its not about the issue of free speech, its saying its not other people's right to determine what is emotionally ok and not ok, its not the writing thats annoying, its his critique of how people should act thats annoying, he should have the right of free speech, but ideally it would nice to see him be a little less critiquing of something so arbitrary, even then you can say, I am a hypocrit for saying how he should act, when I am saying he shouldn't tell people how they should act. But the point is of this wasn't a logical theory on the proper actions of society, I am not theorizing law here, I am saying people should learn that not everyone feels the same about things, and its not really someone rights to say someone is feeling the "wrong" thing. Do you disagree, do you believe their is an objective way of experiencing feeling? Argue on that point because its intuitively obvious this is the point I am addressing.
Hitchens doesn't respect anything but his own opinions.
Thats the exact point I was making, while it may not be illegal, while I may not feel people should prevent him physically from writing about, its kind of annoying and I think people have the right to feel the way they should, his criticism is obviously targeted at this point, so while he can write about it to china, I don't agree with his ideas.
rights imply duties for other people. People have a right to emotional expression. That implies I have a duty to let them be emotional-- I can't constrict their expression with violence, or any other means of realistic constriction. The right to emotional expression nowhere, and never will imply that we have to enjoy and treat their expressions with respect. If you wish people to have that right say, "People have the right to express emotion and others should treat every expression with respect regardless of their own opinion." This is not a path you want to take.
oh, and another thing: Does hitchen's writing two pages stop anyone from feeling what they want to feel? Does his writing somehow hypnotize people away from their feelings? No. Does his argument say that he wishes to revoke people's rights to emotional expression? To live a society where any voice projected above a certain decibel is illegal? No. It is an article showing his frustration with the events. It's not a bill for Congress.
asd
My idea isn't a bill for Congress, its my frustration, I am saying anything is illegal?? All I am saying is I feel like hitchen's may not directly be saying it, but the underlying principle of his article is that, "People are being false about how they feel, they should feel like this, because this is the right way to feel". My point was you can't critique people like that, you have to learn to respect different points of view, and respect in no way means conformity of action. I can still respect you as a person without being exactly like you. People can fight each other and still respect each other, people can debate in a dignified respectful manner. People can talk and interchange information in a respectful manner. Its all possible, just because you respect someone doesn't mean their your absolute authority and source of conformity. Respect is about giving a person their individual dignity and not so much about hiarchies and authority as people are taught to believe. When an authority figure wants respect they want your submission to their will, this isn't respect, this is actually disrespect. Also finally you can't make laws about people respecting one another, if you did it wouldn't be authentic and it wouldn't work. I can't make a law telling hitchens to be more respectful of other's opinion, it wouldn't accomplish anything. However ideally would I prefer hitchens to be more respectful, and instead maybe contribute a positive point instead of critiquing people? Sure I would. Do I think its people right to feel how they want to? Sure I do. Do I think people should be allowed to act as they want? Sure. Do I think I should be allowed to let people act without me acting in opposition? No.
Bottom line, Rights don't imply duties, wheres the logical basis of this statement??
People say we have the right to life, and yet it isn't an absolute duty for people to live by this right unless they want to. Duty is determined by the individual. The only duty in this world is for nature to be natural, and I am not foolish enough to pretend to know everything about nature, I am just part of it. Hitchens on the other seems to act like he does, not once anything in his article ever address the fact that this is just his opinion or he could be wrong, no it seems to imply it as if it were a constant of the universe that fools beneath him fail to understand.
Having a right to life means that everyone else has a duty not to kill you. It's not one sided. No more debate on rights is necessary.
How does respect work? Does it mean that he has to enjoy other people's points of you? I think respect means that he won't interfere directly. He acknowledges people and lets them do as they please, but in his opinion these points of view/actions are bullshit. Why is he obligated to treat them with dignity if he doesn't agree with them? By your logic, I shouldn't be writing what I think about your views if I have respect for your point of view(and you shouldn't be refuting mine, either). Unless, of course, respect works on a scale where we have to consider some issues with more respect than others. That is a ridiculous idea. Hitchen's didn't kill anyone with his words. No great change has been enacted by his opinion. I think he's shown reasonable respect. He didn't protest the funerals or take any direct action.
asd
1) The duty not to kill another person means nothing unless that person decides they don't want to kill another person. Duty comes internally.
2) Respect isn't about uninterference is about giving people the right of human dignity, not humilating them for different believes, being able to listen, understand etc. Respect isn't about submission of will and prevention of action. I can listen to you, understand your point of view, prevent myself from humilating you for thinking diffrent, and still say in my opinion I think this and its 100% right to me, but to you I understand you disagree.... Thats respect. Pretending to act like you are the supreme moral authority in any case is annoying, and I not saying your pretending to be this way so much as hitchens is kind of acting a bit like that.
Your argument is based on a moral ideal and i can't argue it using logic. I don't have a moral standpoint. I don't see hitchen's as being wrong or right morally. He said what he thought.
asd
I don't find hitchens morally wrong or right, I just found his article annoying, but its cool I really don't feel like arguing anymore, just addressing expat's idea -- he should be allowed to say what he thought.
This makes me feel that the position of the rational element in a person really affects the communication of a person with someone who has the rational element in the other position (accepting/producing). It seems obvious to me what HLD was trying to say and that it wasn't something that can be argued. Reminds me of some threads Slacker Mom posts in. Also notice the relative length of HLD's posts.Did I say Hitchens was a miserable man ?? look I am talking in general here, because many people on this post are all, "oh no, this is awful people shouldn't be acting like this". Hitchens can write what he wants, but just the same people should be able to express what they want, works both ways, they should respect each others difference in opinion.What does that mean? They should have the right to prevent Hitchens (or anyone like him) from writing what he thinks, so that their emotional expression should not be disturbed? Is that what you're saying?
Now your misinterpretting my statement, its not about the issue of free speech, its saying its not other people's right to determine what is emotionally ok and not ok, its not the writing thats annoying, its his critique of how people should act thats annoying, he should have the right of free speech, but ideally it would nice to see him be a little less critiquing of something so arbitrary, even then you can say, I am a hypocrit for saying how he should act, when I am saying he shouldn't tell people how they should act. But the point is of this wasn't a logical theory on the proper actions of society, I am not theorizing law here, I am saying people should learn that not everyone feels the same about things, and its not really someone rights to say someone is feeling the "wrong" thing. Do you disagree, do you believe their is an objective way of experiencing feeling? Argue on that point because its intuitively obvious this is the point I am addressing.
Myself an Fe person I don't react very well to the original post but I keep silent knowing it can't be argued.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote