489 réponses à ce sujet

[God]

I hate these overreactions, but I can't say I'm surprised. Censoring history won't accomplish anything, except making people more ignorant of history.

 

It's not really censoring history so much as not tolerating stupidity, hate, and ignorance. 

[Draining Dragon]

It's not really censoring history so much as not tolerating stupidity, hate, and ignorance.

No, that's not how it works. People are entitled to their views, even if those views are stupid, hateful, or ignorant. You don't get to impose your subjective moral judgments on the liberties of others.

[God]

I'm rather sickened that I'm told 'great, awesome, thank you, and 'you're a hero' by folks back home' for serving in the military and working abroad (I return in 1 week from Tour #2 of OIH), yet see all this stuff happening all the time. It only cements my opinion that a lot of what we value back in the states (and a lot of the people) aren't worth my protection. 

[God]

No, that's not how it works. People are entitled to their views, even if those views are stupid, hateful, or ignorant. You don't get to impose your subjective moral judgments on the liberties of others.

 

You mean like you're doing now? 

 

I'm sorry buddy, if what you said was true, then why the Hell am I sitting in a cubicle in Baghdad doing this very thing?

 

This is the kind of crap I fight against. 

 

People should not be entitled to be stupid, hateful, or ignorant. It isn't liberty, it's the tyranny of the mediocre majority.

[X Equestris]

It's not really censoring history so much as not tolerating stupidity, hate, and ignorance.

If you can't even put a historically accurate flag in a game set in the period, I would call it censorship. Not government censorship, and Apple is within their rights to do what they want, but it's still censorship.

[Heimdall]

You mean like you're doing now?

I'm sorry buddy, if what you said was true, then why the Hell am I sitting in a cubicle in Baghdad doing this very thing?

This is the kind of crap I fight against.

People should not be entitled to be stupid, hateful, or ignorant. It isn't liberty, it's the tyranny of the mediocre majority.

They're entitled to be stupid, hateful, and ignorant. It's when they try to put it into practice and oppress others that it shouldn't be tolerated. As I was always taught:

"My right to throw my fist stops at the bridge of your nose"

[X Equestris]

You mean like you're doing now? 
 
I'm sorry buddy, if what you said was true, then why the Hell am I sitting in a cubicle in Baghdad doing this very thing?
 
This is the kind of crap I fight against. 
 
People should not be entitled to be stupid, hateful, or ignorant. It isn't liberty, it's the tyranny of the mediocre majority.

The issue you run into there is who gets to decide what is stupid, ignorant, or hateful. Those words mean different things to different people, and a government policy against such things would undoubtedly be used to grind political axes. Not to mention that some people have crazy ideas of what is hateful.

[God]

They're entitled to be stupid, hateful, and ignorant. It's when they try to put it into practice and oppress others that it becomes fair game. As I was always taught:

"My right to throw my fist stops at the bridge of your nose"

 

Then I think that's something that ought to be changed around the States. It's one of the few places I can think of in the Western world where being those 3 things is 1) considered a liberty, and 2) considered a good thing for being such.

 

I'm not saying ban Confederate flags. I'm saying ban stupidity, hate, and ignorance. By which I mean find ways to enforce existing laws to undermine them, as well as subvert beliefs and opinons that support them.

[Draining Dragon]

Then I think that's something that ought to be changed around the States. It's one of the few places I can think of in the Western world where being those 3 things is 1) considered a liberty, and 2) considered a good thing for being such.

Have you forgotten why we rebelled against Great Britain in the first place? We value human rights and civil liberties in a way that other countries will never understand, not even now. That's what makes America so great.
 

I'm not saying ban Confederate flags. I'm saying ban stupidity, hate, and ignorance. By which I mean find ways to enforce existing laws to undermine them, as well as subvert beliefs and opinons that support them.

Who gets to define those things? The government? Who's to say that your views won't someday be labelled stupid, hateful, and ignorant?

[Han Shot First]

The civil war of the united states was fought over the southern states viewing the current government as illegitimate, and rebelling against it. Considering Abraham Lincoln lost the popular vote, and won because of the electoral college, which had been stacked in favor of the north in the first place, they had a point.

 

 

 

Lincoln won the popular vote.

 

 

All rebellions view the government they are rebelling against as no longer being legitimate, otherwise they wouldn't be rebelling against it. That often has little to do however with the actual cause for that rebellion. The Confederate leadership was quite clear on what their chief grievance was, and why they were seceding from the United States. Over and over again the declarations of secession declare that chief grievance to be threats to the institution of slavery. If slavery was not the cause for which the south fought, then why did its own leaders say that it was?

 

 

 

If you think the Union and Confederacy were any better from one another, you're sadly mistaken. The south had its monsters, and its heroes. The north had its heroes, and also a general who decided mass indiscriminate killings and raiding were the way to win the war. Look up Sherman's March to the Sea.

 

 

 

The Confederacy was specifically founded as a slave state. Slavery was the whole reason for the Confederacy's existence and the cause for which it fought. That sets it apart from the United States or practically every other nation that had legal slavery at some point in its history.

 

As for Sherman's march to the sea, I suggest you look it up. You're as clearly uninformed there as you are about who won the popular vote in 1860. Indiscriminate killing was not part of Sherman's march to the sea. 

 

Lets take a look at  Sherman's Special Field Orders No. 120, which were issued in preparation for the March to the Sea:

 

 

 

Headquarters Military Division of the Mississippi,

In the Field, Kingston, Georgia, November 9, 1864

I. For the purpose of military operations, this army is divided into two wings viz.: The right wing, Major-General O. O. Howard commanding, composed of the Fifteenth and Seventeenth Corps; the left wing, Major-General H. W. Slocum commanding, composed of the Fourteenth and Twentieth Corps.

II. The habitual order of march will be, wherever practicable, by four roads, as nearly parallel as possible, and converging at points hereafter to be indicated in orders. The cavalry, Brigadier - General Kilpatrick commanding, will receive special orders from the commander-in-chief.

III. There will be no general train of supplies, but each corps will have its ammunition-train and provision-train, distributed habitually as follows: Behind each regiment should follow one wagon and one ambulance; behind each brigade should follow a due proportion of ammunition - wagons, provision-wagons, and ambulances. In case of danger, each corps commander should change this order of march, by having his advance and rear brigades unencumbered by wheels. The separate columns will start habitually at 7 a.m., and make about fifteen miles per day, unless otherwise fixed in orders.

IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, potatoes, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.

V. To army corps commanders alone is intrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, &c., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.

VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, &c., belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or bridges. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance.

 

VII. Negroes who are able-bodied and can be of service to the several columns may be taken along, but each army commander will bear in mind that the question of supplies is a very important one and that his first duty is to see to them who bear arms.

 

— William T. Sherman, Military Division of the Mississippi Special Field Order 120, November 9, 1864

 

The order forbids soldiers from entering private homes and using threatening language with the inhabitants, advises discriminating between the rich and poor while foraging, and orders enough be left to poor families to not render them completely destitute. He also only grants the authority to destroy mills, cotton gins and houses only to Corps commanders, and orders they be left unmolested so long as the army isn't engaged by local guerrillas and bushwackers. 

 

No doubt Sherman's March to the Sea was unpleasant for anyone caught in its path, but Attila the Hun, he was not.

 

 

 

It's a myth that the civil war was about slaves. It was about power, and african americans were just pawns, used and discarded. They would have been screwed, no matter which side won. But at least people could have the common courtesy not to ****** on their heads for 100 years and tell them it was just rain.

 

 

If the war wasn't about slavery, why did the Confederate declarations of secession say it was about slavery?

 

But if you won't take my word for it, or the word of the Confederate leadership who drafted those documents, how about the gray ghost himself, John Mosby?

 

 

People must be judged by the standard of their own age. If it was right to own slaves as property it was right to fight for it. The South went to war on account of Slavery. South Carolina went to war – as she said in her Secession proclamation – because slavery would not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding. . . . I am not ashamed of having fought on the side of slavery – a soldier fights for his country – right or wrong – he is not responsible for the political merits of the cause he fights in. The South was my country.

 

The Postwar Letters of John Singleton Mosby

[Heimdall]

Then I think that's something that ought to be changed around the States. It's one of the few places I can think of in the Western world where being those 3 things is 1) considered a liberty, and 2) considered a good thing for being such.
 
I'm not saying ban Confederate flags. I'm saying ban stupidity, hate, and ignorance. By which I mean find ways to enforce existing laws to undermine them, as well as subvert beliefs and opinons that support them.

I wouldn't say it's considered a good thing. Their critics are just as free to voice their opinions and things like that should be discouraged, but the moment you start outlawing particular beliefs outright is the start of a frightening precedent (Particularly when it comes down to who gets to decide whether something is "stupid", "hateful", "ignorant" or better yet, "harmful")

I don't approve of these things, but I do think freedom of speech is an all or nothing deal, or should be.

[God]

The issue you run into there is who gets to decide what is stupid, ignorant, or hateful. Those words mean different things to different people, and a government policy against such things would undoubtedly be used to grind political axes. Not to mention that some people have crazy ideas of what is hateful.

 

I'm a pretty logical guy. I aim to be as dispassionate and detached in as much as things as possible. and I prefer being emotionally centered and tranquil at all times. I don't like feeling either positive or negative emotion. Hell, I'm the one person you might meet who thinks that it'd be preferable to live as an unfeeling AI to having a dream life of emotional fulfillment and love. 

 

But the one thing that really gets me irked is the belief, the opinion, the idea... the idea that being ignorant and hateful is not only a liberty, but is a virtue. The sheer belief that one should be free from information that contradicts whatever ideology they had ingrained in them. Which is why I feel I'd be more entitled to deciding what is stupid, ignorant, and hateful than those from the masses. 

 

As well, I don't believe in equality of the people. I don't believe in fairness even, so far as the logical extent of the law goes. I don't like or trust democracy, and I certainly don't believe that everyone is worthy or deserving of freedom, liberty, or even life. Call it Confucianism, call it assimilation, or hell, call it the Qun. I believe we ought to go shoot for the days when we have trained philosopher-kings running things in a meritocratic technocracy. Someone who does have ability (and thus the authority) to decide what is right and wrong, and when its right and wrong, and having the final word on authority, and having the final word on what is hateful, ignorant, and stupid. And I do think there are people who can define what that is. I'm not going to say that I am indeed one of them, but I can say that I do believe they exist.

[God]

Have you forgotten why we rebelled against Great Britain in the first place? We value human rights and civil liberties in a way that other countries will never understand, not even now. That's what makes America so great.
 

Who gets to define those things? The government? Who's to say that your views won't someday be labelled stupid, hateful, and ignorant?

 

No, I didn't forget why we rebelled against Great Britain. We weren't being treated enough like citizens of the Empire, and we figured that if we weren't treated as people in the Empire, we should break off and start our own. 

 

Otherwise, what you're saying is so skewed, untrue in modern context, and downright false that I have no other conclusion that you're trolling. Nice. On the off-chance you're being serious, I've got a video clip for you.

 

What makes America great? I'll tell you: It's our ability to make our culture, our economy, and our military pervasive throughout the globe. We have a globalized soft Empire, not through virtue or ideology, but through economics and war. We're arrogant bastards who feel entitled, and we're willing to act on that entitlement. That's what makes us great.

[God]

I wouldn't say it's considered a good thing. Their critics are just as free to voice their opinions and things like that should be discouraged, but the moment you start outlawing particular beliefs outright is the start of a frightening precedent (Particularly when it comes down to who gets to decide whether something is "stupid", "hateful", "ignorant" or better yet, "harmful")

I don't approve of these things, but I do think freedom of speech is an all or nothing deal, or should be.

 

I'll leave you with my opinion: it's not an all or nothing ideal. Hate, stupidity, and ignorance are worthy enough of being banned. Even now, if you think you really have free speech all the time, you're kidding yourself. Otherwise, I really don't see the issue behind the outlawing of those beliefs.

 

Then again, I'm the kind of guy that thinks the Qun is a good idea. Take that for what you will.

[Han Shot First]

Another enlightening comment by Jeni Bro!

 

Actually he was incorrect on every point he raised.

[Heimdall]

I'll leave you with my opinion: it's not an all or nothing ideal. Hate, stupidity, and ignorance are worthy enough of being banned. Even now, if you think you really have free speech all the time, you're kidding yourself. Otherwise, I really don't see the issue behind the outlawing of those beliefs.

Then again, I'm the kind of guy that thinks the Qun is a good idea. Take that for what you will.

I'll leave you to yours then. I find that it must be all or nothing because otherwise someone someday me decide that the views you just expressed (Or mine for that matter) are hateful and harmful to society, as have us jailed or fined or worse until we disavow them. Freedom of ideas, no matter what they are, doesn't just protect the beliefs you dislike now, but your own for all time.

I consider authority figures innately untrustworthy. Concentrated authority is more efficient, no doubt, but I prefer democracy despite its many flaws because it's usually somewhat better at diffusing authority and holding its leaders accountable.

[Draining Dragon]

I'll leave you with my opinion: it's not an all or nothing ideal. Hate, stupidity, and ignorance are worthy enough of being banned. Even now, if you think you really have free speech all the time, you're kidding yourself. Otherwise, I really don't see the issue behind the outlawing of those beliefs.
 
Then again, I'm the kind of guy that thinks the Qun is a good idea. Take that for what you will.

The issue is that anything can be labelled hateful, stupid, or ignorant.

On a side note, have you read Hobbes? You strike me as someone who would agree with his views on human nature and government.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Actually he was incorrect on every point he raised.

 

Because we're the Politically Incorrect League AKA PIL!

lol

[God]

Yes I have, and yes I do.

 

On rational grounds, I support absolutism (provided that there is a limit to the intensity to the ruler.) I also support liberal and progressive thought and ideology respectively.

[God]

I'll leave you to yours then. I find that it must be all or nothing because otherwise someone someday me decide that the views you just expressed (Or mine for that matter) are hateful and harmful to society, as have us jailed or fined or worse until we disavow them. Freedom of ideas, no matter what they are, doesn't just protect the beliefs you dislike now, but your own for all time.

I consider authority figures innately untrustworthy. Concentrated authority is more efficient, no doubt, but I prefer democracy despite its many flaws because it's usually somewhat better at diffusing authority and holding its leaders accountable.

 

I consider the way we as people select our authority figures as untrustworthy, which is why I believe we come to the belief that they are innately untrustworthy. 

 

I personally believe we need to select the logical, rational, and dare I say semi-sociopathic people who best trained and best prepared to lead us. 

 

For example, I don't entirely go with the idea that we should completely trust a leader or ruler until they've proven themselves. However, once they have, I support giving them total and absolute authority to the letter, with all powers to rule and govern as they see fit to protect and govern their realm, constituency, or state.

 

I also consider the greater good of the entity as distinct from the greater good of the people. I also hold that good of the entity above that of the people. The whole (the state entity) is greater than the sum of its parts (the people).

 

As far as rule itself goes, I'm a Machiavellian when it comes to how a ruler and leader conducts his rule. 

[Heimdall]

I consider the way we as people select our authority figures as untrustworthy, which is why I believe we come to the belief that they are innately untrustworthy.

I personally believe we need to select the logical, rational, and dare I say semi-sociopathic people who best trained and best prepared to lead us.

For example, I don't entirely go with the idea that we should completely trust a leader or ruler until they've proven themselves. However, once they have, I support giving them total and absolute authority to the letter, with all powers to rule and govern as they see fit to protect and govern their realm, constituency, or state.

I also consider the greater good of the entity as distinct from the greater good of the people. I also hold that good of the entity above that of the people. The whole (the state entity) is greater than the sum of its parts (the people).

As far as rule itself goes, I'm a Machiavellian when it comes to how a ruler and leader conducts his rule.

Fair enough.

I might even agree, if I believed such people existed in sufficient numbers or a sufficiently stringent selection method could be devised. I don't.

[Draining Dragon]

I consider the way we as people select our authority figures as untrustworthy, which is why I believe we come to the belief that they are innately untrustworthy. 
 
I personally believe we need to select the logical, rational, and dare I say semi-sociopathic people who best trained and best prepared to lead us. 
 
For example, I don't entirely go with the idea that we should completely trust a leader or ruler until they've proven themselves. However, once they have, I support giving them total and absolute authority to the letter, with all powers to rule and govern as they see fit to protect and govern their realm, constituency, or state.
 
I also consider the greater good of the entity as distinct from the greater good of the people. I also hold that good of the entity above that of the people. The whole (the state entity) is greater than the sum of its parts (the people).
 
As far as rule itself goes, I'm a Machiavellian when it comes to how a ruler and leader conducts his rule.

Well, that is... actually quite fascinating. I've never met an authoritarian who was honest about their beliefs.

Given your views, would you say you disagree with the claim that power corrupts?

[God]

Well, that is... actually quite fascinating. I've never met an authoritarian who was honest about their beliefs.

Given your views, would you say you disagree with the claim that power corrupts?

 

Absolutely. I completely challenge and despise that notion in fact.

 

Personally, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God or Gods. I understand the notion and idea of faith, and simply reject it because it isn't practical or rational to my worldview.

 

I do believe that, through the right combination of technology and power, we can become Gods ourselves. Or a worthy facsimile.

 

That's something that people tend to misunderstand or forget about power. It can be a corrupting influence, yes, but it unbridled power can also afford unhindered purpose. Staying clear on a purpose, on a goal, is enough for one to remain incorrupt by the negative influence that power can have.

 

I am also a firm believer in 'The end justifies the means'. Exitus Acta Probat. None of that 'the means reflect the ends' bull.

[Heimdall]

I don't think power corrupts either.

I think people are corrupt, power just has a way of drawing it out.

[Draining Dragon]

What exactly stops rulers from exploiting their power for personal gain? If people are so evil that they need to be ruled over, who is supposed to rule them? Rulers are still people, and still suffer from the same flaws.

"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." - Thomas Jefferson

Furthermore, who chooses the ruler? The same people who are supposed to be ruled over? Then you have democracy, with all its flaws.

I think authoritarianism could work if you had the right leader, but it's basically a gamble, and most of the time, you're going to lose and get either a fool or a selfish tyrant.