I just had a friend message me "I know that the church is true and I know that you know. And nothing you say will ever convince me otherwise" (ok, so that's a paraphrase, but it preserves his meaning). I'm tempted to write back "Well, if you're deluded enough to believe in god, why not continue the delusion by thinking that I still believe too, even though I've made it quite clear that I don't." I mean, I find it rather ridiculous for someone to claim knowledge about another person's beliefs when they've made it quite clear what their beliefs are.
I think the most sensible response would be to do nothing - which will probably annoy him more than any argument.
I just love it (not) when people are patronising, arrogant and ignorant enough to either think they know what I'm thinking or worse still try and tell me what I'm thinking. Arseholes every one of them.
Quote from: OldGit on April 07, 2012, 06:32:43 PM
I think the most sensible response would be to do nothing - which will probably annoy him more than any argument.
You're probably right. I wish I was sensible enough to simply ignore him. But I think I've still got that "I have to be right" feeling that keeps me arguing. That's something I need to work on.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 07, 2012, 06:23:38 PM
I just had a friend message me "I know that the church is true and I know that you know. And nothing you say will ever convince me otherwise" (ok, so that's a paraphrase, but it preserves his meaning). I'm tempted to write back "Well, if you're deluded enough to believe in god, why not continue the delusion by thinking that I still believe too, even though I've made it quite clear that I don't." I mean, I find it rather ridiculous for someone to claim knowledge about another person's beliefs when they've made it quite clear what their beliefs are.
I would be tempted to go for a sarcastic answer, along the lines of "sure, you
know the secrets of the universe, so it's logical to assume that you also
know what I'm thinking. You must be god to
know such things... what ever happened to your humility?
Quote from: Tank on April 07, 2012, 07:42:21 PM
I just love it (not) when people are patronising, arrogant and ignorant enough to either think they know what I'm thinking or worse still try and tell me what I'm thinking. Arseholes every one of them.
Yeah, I get that all the time too. They could at least
try to be a little more competent at trying to read my mind, at least. ::)
The best response to such an assinine comment is a facepalm followed be a loud, wet raspberry.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbluntobject.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2Ftactical-facepalm.jpg%3Fw%3D655&hash=1dd54707371966c82eada60660ae21d761308c2d)
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 07, 2012, 08:24:29 PM
The best response to such an assinine comment is a facepalm followed be a loud, wet raspberry.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbluntobject.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F03%2Ftactical-facepalm.jpg%3Fw%3D655&hash=1dd54707371966c82eada60660ae21d761308c2d)
ROFL ;D So true.
Freinds respect each other despite their different beliefs.
Unless they feel threatened, I think you're getting to him, keithpenrod!
Tell me if that's the case, I need to practitce my mind reading skills somewhere...cavies are hard to come by.
;)
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 07, 2012, 09:11:40 PM
Unless they feel threatened, I think you're getting to him, keithpenrod!
Tell me if that's the case, I need to practitce my mind reading skills somewhere...cavies are hard to come by.
;)
Bahaha. I don't think he's the only one. Post enough Hitchens, Penn Jillette, Dawkins, and Sagan on your wall and a good percentage of your religious friends will feel threatened. I just saw a quote yesterday that said "Being offended is not a defence [sic] - it's the last resort of those without an argument." -John Dale
I thought about posting that on my wall, but decided against it.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 07, 2012, 09:21:02 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 07, 2012, 09:11:40 PM
Unless they feel threatened, I think you're getting to him, keithpenrod!
Tell me if that's the case, I need to practitce my mind reading skills somewhere...cavies are hard to come by.
;)
Bahaha. I don't think he's the only one. Post enough Hitchens, Penn Jillette, Dawkins, and Sagan on your wall and a good percentage of your religious friends will feel threoatened. I just saw a quote yesterday that said "Being offended is not a defence [sic] - it's the last resort of those without an argument." -John Dale
I thought about posting that on my wall, but decided against it.
Brilliant quote. Stolen, thanks.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 07, 2012, 09:21:02 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 07, 2012, 09:11:40 PM
Unless they feel threatened, I think you're getting to him, keithpenrod!
Tell me if that's the case, I need to practitce my mind reading skills somewhere...cavies are hard to come by.
;)
Bahaha. I don't think he's the only one. Post enough Hitchens, Penn Jillette, Dawkins, and Sagan on your wall and a good percentage of your religious friends will feel threatened. I just saw a quote yesterday that said "Being offended is not a defence [sic] - it's the last resort of those without an argument." -John Dale
I thought about posting that on my wall, but decided against it.
What offends someone is the thing they tend to know the least about, and therefore be the most afraid of.
Religious friends and family who claim they know that "deep down inside" I still believe in God, but I'm just angry at him... those are the same folks who get all offended when I post or say something non-theistic, science-related, or in favour of, say, gay marriage. Their offense (anger) is a thin veil for their fear. Fear of what? Fear of the unknown, fear that they just might not be right, fear that someone out there is somehow having a decent life without having to believe in God... lots of stuff.
A friend of mine is going to lose a grandparent in less than a month or two, probably. She often says things like "Jesus is all I have" (which accidentally insults her friends who want to be there for her to support her, as she has us too) or she'll ask stuff like "wouldn't you just TRY to pray for me? He's still listening to you, even if you've fallen away..." (which accidentally assumes that everyone else in the world feels the need for God that she does).
Delusion isn't helpful. If anything, it's harmful. When you're upset, grieving, going through a rough patch in your life... clinging to a comforting fantasy never lets you get THROUGH your problem. It never lets you heal and move on. It gives you a nice story, rather than resources and support for dealing with reality. Sigh.
Quote from: Stevil on April 07, 2012, 09:04:46 PM
Freinds respect each other despite their different beliefs.
Some people just can't.
I agree that a lack of response would be the wisest answer, but I doubt I would have the restraint to do it. I think I'd be more likely to respond with a text that says something a long the lines of "Oooh, a mind reader eh? Quick, what am I thinking now? How about now? Now? Now! Now?" I'm annoying like that.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 07, 2012, 06:23:38 PM
I just had a friend message me "I know that the church is true and I know that you know. And nothing you say will ever convince me otherwise" (ok, so that's a paraphrase, but it preserves his meaning).
I think Amicale is right that such responses are based in fear -- he's just comforting himself, and that overrules understanding how asinine his statement is. Me, I'd respond with "I'm fine with whatever makes you feel better", which is kind of snotty in a passive-aggressive way but I can be like that. ::)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 08, 2012, 06:41:43 AM
Quote from: Stevil on April 07, 2012, 09:04:46 PM
Freinds respect each other despite their different beliefs.
Some people just can't.
Cut those out of your life with a rusty butter knife and problem gone, yes?
Quote from: Asmodean on April 08, 2012, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 08, 2012, 06:41:43 AM
Quote from: Stevil on April 07, 2012, 09:04:46 PM
Freinds respect each other despite their different beliefs.
Some people just can't.
Cut those out of your life with a rusty butter knife and problem gone, yes?
That's what I do.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on April 08, 2012, 08:19:26 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 07, 2012, 06:23:38 PM
I just had a friend message me "I know that the church is true and I know that you know. And nothing you say will ever convince me otherwise" (ok, so that's a paraphrase, but it preserves his meaning).
I think Amicale is right that such responses are based in fear -- he's just comforting himself, and that overrules understanding how asinine his statement is. Me, I'd respond with "I'm fine with whatever makes you feel better", which is kind of snotty in a passive-aggressive way but I can be like that. ::)
Yeah, I'm kind of like that too. I didn't really think of it as snotty, but I suppose that's me being nice to myself. I've often said things such as "If it makes you feel better about yourself to say/think that, that's great. I know how I feel and I believe that I've expressed it sufficiently well."
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 08, 2012, 11:07:41 PM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on April 08, 2012, 08:19:26 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 07, 2012, 06:23:38 PM
I just had a friend message me "I know that the church is true and I know that you know. And nothing you say will ever convince me otherwise" (ok, so that's a paraphrase, but it preserves his meaning).
I think Amicale is right that such responses are based in fear -- he's just comforting himself, and that overrules understanding how asinine his statement is. Me, I'd respond with "I'm fine with whatever makes you feel better", which is kind of snotty in a passive-aggressive way but I can be like that. ::)
Yeah, I'm kind of like that too. I didn't really think of it as snotty, but I suppose that's me being nice to myself. I've often said things such as "If it makes you feel better about yourself to say/think that, that's great. I know how I feel and I believe that I've expressed it sufficiently well."
I would be slightly more blunt and say something more like "look, don't confuse me for yourself, ok. Just because you feel you need it doesn't mean that I do."
But then again some people really test my patience. ::)
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 08, 2012, 11:07:41 PM
Yeah, I'm kind of like that too. I didn't really think of it as snotty, but I suppose that's me being nice to myself. I've often said things such as "If it makes you feel better about yourself to say/think that, that's great. I know how I feel and I believe that I've expressed it sufficiently well."
Well, when I thought about it I might as well be patting the person on his head. Probably just be better to say "I understand", because I do -- I was raised in a religious family and I know the drill.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 08, 2012, 11:11:51 PM
I would be slightly more blunt and say something more like "look, don't confuse me for yourself, ok. Just because you feel you need it doesn't mean that I do."
But then again some people really test my patience. ::)
And then some people are just more out there. ;D
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on April 08, 2012, 11:26:56 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 08, 2012, 11:11:51 PM
I would be slightly more blunt and say something more like "look, don't confuse me for yourself, ok. Just because you feel you need it doesn't mean that I do."
But then again some people really test my patience. ::)
And then some people are just more out there. ;D
Heheh it's an acquired habit.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 08, 2012, 10:43:12 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on April 08, 2012, 08:52:53 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 08, 2012, 06:41:43 AM
Quote from: Stevil on April 07, 2012, 09:04:46 PM
Freinds respect each other despite their different beliefs.
Some people just can't.
Cut those out of your life with a rusty butter knife and problem gone, yes?
That's what I do.
I do too. In my circle of friends there is one who has become a Catholic Deacon. I remember once he and his wife were at our Dungeons & Dragons game (He avidly plays D&D if you can imagine) and his wife launched into a Government is Against my Religion tirade.
I really wanted to rip her a new one but decided to excuse myself (she was doing this to a room full of Pagans and Athiests).
Since then, I won't have anything to do with her and he's on the edge of my never wanting to ever deal with him again. He's usually not in your face about it, but he's getting a little too pushy about asking us to come to his church on Sunday. I'm just going to not associate all that much anymore.
It occurs to me that both sides often do this, and it can hurt -- sometimes atheists drop Christian friends because of their pushiness, preachiness, etc... and sometimes religious people drop atheist friends because they tend to think we're going to hell. When I've had a "friend" in the past decide to drop me like a hot potato just because of what I do or don't believe, I shrug it off, and try and move on. It hurts for a bit, especially if we used to be close, but I figure someone who'll ditch me just because I don't happen to believe in God... well, they must not have been much of a friend, anyhow.
By the same token, I don't distance myself from religious friends just because they're religious. I can put up with different ideas and opinions, no problem. The time to drop a friendship or distance yourself from a friend though, I think, is when they stop respecting you for being who you are, and start seeing you as just one more hellbound person to save. I REFUSE to become anyone's project. I don't try to deconvert religious friends, so I ask that they not try to beat me over the head with whichever holy book they prefer. Fair's fair.
Beachdragon: It doesn't surprise me one bit that your guy friend, the Catholic, plays D&D. On the whole, even Catholics who are really religious/serious about their faith (including the radical traditionalist Catholics, or rad-trads) still have no problem fitting OK into the secular world. They play games, drink beer, etc. They're more balanced in that regard than, say, the Southern Baptists tend to be.
Quote from: Amicale on April 10, 2012, 08:05:08 PM
It occurs to me that both sides often do this, and it can hurt -- sometimes atheists drop Christian friends because of their pushiness, preachiness, etc... and sometimes religious people drop atheist friends because they tend to think we're going to hell. When I've had a "friend" in the past decide to drop me like a hot potato just because of what I do or don't believe, I shrug it off, and try and move on. It hurts for a bit, especially if we used to be close, but I figure someone who'll ditch me just because I don't happen to believe in God... well, they must not have been much of a friend, anyhow.
By the same token, I don't distance myself from religious friends just because they're religious. I can put up with different ideas and opinions, no problem. The time to drop a friendship or distance yourself from a friend though, I think, is when they stop respecting you for being who you are, and start seeing you as just one more hellbound person to save. I REFUSE to become anyone's project. I don't try to deconvert religious friends, so I ask that they not try to beat me over the head with whichever holy book they prefer. Fair's fair.
Beachdragon: It doesn't surprise me one bit that your guy friend, the Catholic, plays D&D. On the whole, even Catholics who are really religious/serious about their faith (including the radical traditionalist Catholics, or rad-trads) still have no problem fitting OK into the secular world. They play games, drink beer, etc. They're more balanced in that regard than, say, the Southern Baptists tend to be.
(To be honest, I had never thought of D&D as a secular thing. I played similar games when I was a child, as a faithful Mormon, and my parents didn't seem to be bothered by it.)
I have only dropped/blocked a few people, and it's only when they're being inappropriately aggressive or cruel and only after I've given a warning that I would do so unless they could be more civil. I don't mind preachy people, but when they keep saying how I'm destroying their family and how they need to protect their children from me, etc, then I think that's going too far.
On the other hand, I've had tons of people unfriend me. Since I came out (as gay) a year ago, I've had nearly 100 people unfriend me--40 just within a week or two, 20 or 30 more when I said I had left Mormonism a few months later, and they've just been trickling out of my friends list since then. To me that's just a sign that they're uncomfortable with people questioning their religious beliefs. I figure what good is a belief if you can't stand to have it be questioned? If it's true, then it will stand up against any scrutiny to which it is put.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 10, 2012, 10:50:58 PM
Quote from: Amicale on April 10, 2012, 08:05:08 PM
It occurs to me that both sides often do this, and it can hurt -- sometimes atheists drop Christian friends because of their pushiness, preachiness, etc... and sometimes religious people drop atheist friends because they tend to think we're going to hell. When I've had a "friend" in the past decide to drop me like a hot potato just because of what I do or don't believe, I shrug it off, and try and move on. It hurts for a bit, especially if we used to be close, but I figure someone who'll ditch me just because I don't happen to believe in God... well, they must not have been much of a friend, anyhow.
By the same token, I don't distance myself from religious friends just because they're religious. I can put up with different ideas and opinions, no problem. The time to drop a friendship or distance yourself from a friend though, I think, is when they stop respecting you for being who you are, and start seeing you as just one more hellbound person to save. I REFUSE to become anyone's project. I don't try to deconvert religious friends, so I ask that they not try to beat me over the head with whichever holy book they prefer. Fair's fair.
Beachdragon: It doesn't surprise me one bit that your guy friend, the Catholic, plays D&D. On the whole, even Catholics who are really religious/serious about their faith (including the radical traditionalist Catholics, or rad-trads) still have no problem fitting OK into the secular world. They play games, drink beer, etc. They're more balanced in that regard than, say, the Southern Baptists tend to be.
(To be honest, I had never thought of D&D as a secular thing. I played similar games when I was a child, as a faithful Mormon, and my parents didn't seem to be bothered by it.)
I have only dropped/blocked a few people, and it's only when they're being inappropriately aggressive or cruel and only after I've given a warning that I would do so unless they could be more civil. I don't mind preachy people, but when they keep saying how I'm destroying their family and how they need to protect their children from me, etc, then I think that's going too far.
On the other hand, I've had tons of people unfriend me. Since I came out (as gay) a year ago, I've had nearly 100 people unfriend me--40 just within a week or two, 20 or 30 more when I said I had left Mormonism a few months later, and they've just been trickling out of my friends list since then. To me that's just a sign that they're uncomfortable with people questioning their religious beliefs. I figure what good is a belief if you can't stand to have it be questioned? If it's true, then it will stand up against any scrutiny to which it is put.
Keith, I'm sorry about the experiences you've had. I've had similar ones - although I don't think it was to the tune of a hundred people, but if we're just counting facebook 'friends', I've only ever had 25 to 30 peole on my facebook and I know them all well, and personally. Anyhow, when I came out as gay years ago, I certainly lost some friends. We were all young (late teens to early 20s) and some of them just couldn't handle me being different. I remember one old friend asking "so, you're gay." "yep!" "do you have a crush on me?" "hell no!" and so on, and so forth. My family and friends who stayed close with me handled it pretty well, mostly welcomed my then-girlfriend into the family, etc. It's the coming out as atheist that's more difficult, ironically. Some people know, some don't. A couple friends who know I don't believe in God chose to drop me like hot coal, so they ceased to be friends.
I totally agree with you, though -- what's so scary about having your beliefs questioned? Are they really so shaky that they'll collapse like a house of cards if you question too much? Anything worth believing should stand up to questions and scrutiny, just as you said. The ironic thing is, I wouldn't have challenged them on their beliefs. Some people are debaters, some people are peacemakers. We need both in the world, but I'm generally a peacemaker. It was just the act of saying 'I don't believe in God' that scared a couple of them off.
I've always found it funny that 'I'm a lesbian' went over far better. :D Guess I can thank living in Canada for that one. Land of gay marriage, yet home to a wide majority of at least casual theists.
I would say, "Well, if nothing I say will ever convince you otherwise, then I guess I won't say anything."
Quote from: Amicale on April 11, 2012, 12:07:12 AM
I've always found it funny that 'I'm a lesbian' went over far better. :D Guess I can thank living in Canada for that one. Land of gay marriage, yet home to a wide majority of at least casual theists.
I've found that admitting to one often makes people assume the other around here. While this is true in my case it seems like very sloppy thinking generally.
Yea, my brother came out as gay, but won't come out as an agnostic!!
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on April 11, 2012, 03:41:24 AM
Quote from: Amicale on April 11, 2012, 12:07:12 AM
I've always found it funny that 'I'm a lesbian' went over far better. :D Guess I can thank living in Canada for that one. Land of gay marriage, yet home to a wide majority of at least casual theists.
I've found that admitting to one often makes people assume the other around here. While this is true in my case it seems like very sloppy thinking generally.
Hmm, interesting. :) I wouldn't say this is generally the case here. Although a common perception in society here seems to be that if you're gay you're probably an atheist, I've still been asked which church I go to, just because in my area there are huge numbers of gay folks in the Unitarian Universalist as well as the Anglican church. I've gotta say, despite my disagreement on theological stuff with the Anglicans, I do think it's pretty cool that they're determined to be as inclusive as possible. There are pastors there who are gay, female, female and gay, any combination of the above. :D My ex-girlfriend who I'm still good friends with is a lifelong Anglican, she loves the community there. They do seem to be pretty welcoming. Heck, once I went to church with her and told a couple people there that I wasn't Anglican. They asked what I was, and at the time, I said 'Agnostic'. Their response was 'Oh, cool. Want to grab coffee after church?' so 4 of us did. As for the UU's, well, there's any combination of beliefs and orientations there. I'd check them out for sure, sometime.
Quote from: Amicale on April 11, 2012, 03:55:57 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on April 11, 2012, 03:41:24 AM
Quote from: Amicale on April 11, 2012, 12:07:12 AM
I've always found it funny that 'I'm a lesbian' went over far better. :D Guess I can thank living in Canada for that one. Land of gay marriage, yet home to a wide majority of at least casual theists.
I've found that admitting to one often makes people assume the other around here. While this is true in my case it seems like very sloppy thinking generally.
Hmm, interesting. :) I wouldn't say this is generally the case here. Although a common perception in society here seems to be that if you're gay you're probably an atheist, I've still been asked which church I go to, just because in my area there are huge numbers of gay folks in the Unitarian Universalist as well as the Anglican church. I've gotta say, despite my disagreement on theological stuff with the Anglicans, I do think it's pretty cool that they're determined to be as inclusive as possible. There are pastors there who are gay, female, female and gay, any combination of the above. :D My ex-girlfriend who I'm still good friends with is a lifelong Anglican, she loves the community there. They do seem to be pretty welcoming. Heck, once I went to church with her and told a couple people there that I wasn't Anglican. They asked what I was, and at the time, I said 'Agnostic'. Their response was 'Oh, cool. Want to grab coffee after church?' so 4 of us did. As for the UU's, well, there's any combination of beliefs and orientations there. I'd check them out for sure, sometime.
Yeah, there are some people that I don't know if I'll ever tell that I'm atheist. I mean, I'm "out" on Facebook and on my blog, but many people don't use either one, so they won't know unless I tell them personally. There's a really sweet old lady that I became friends with when I was Mormon, because I went with the missionaries to teach her about the church. I've maintained my friendship with her even though I've left the church. (Sadly, most Mormons won't talk to me anymore, but she's pretty cool.) Anyway, when I told her I was gay and introduced her to my bf, she was all cool with it, and with me leaving the church. She just said "Just as long as you don't stop believing in god." She asks me to say grace when I have dinner with her. I oblige, just because she's such a sweet lady and I don't think there's any harm in it. It's not like she's pushing her beliefs on me, or that she'd judge me if I told her I was atheist. It's just that she's so sweet about it and I feel like I'd break her heart if I did tell her.
My grandma's another story. She has been having increasingly severe memory loss over the last couple years. I've never told her that I'm gay or atheist, and I don't know if I will. We're going out to visit family next month, and I'm sure we'll go see her. I think, though, that I'll just introduce my bf as a "friend". I mean, I wouldn't have too much issue trying to explain it to her if I knew I'd only have to explain it once, but she'll forget bits of the conversation and end up asking the same question multiple times all within a few minutes. I don't really want to explain it to her multiple times, so I think I'll just lay low.
As for most of my family, I think for them the announcement that I'm atheist came as an aftershock to the announcement that I'm gay, so it was less severe. Kind of like, they were already dazed by me being gay and therefore didn't really notice that I'm not a believer anymore. Or maybe once they recover from the shock of me being gay, then they'll be able to address the shock of me being atheist. I'm not sure. But they're all excited to see me and meet my bf when we come, so I'm hopeful.
I know the world is gray and people are in different situations, but if I am nof true to myself, I dont know who I am. Dont get me wrong, I am not sporting banners, but I am in a commited relationship , and I am a bit openly political. So knowing me for more than a day and you'll know I am a gay, atheist who fights for equal rights of both sexes, and animals!! :D
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 11, 2012, 06:59:58 AM
I know the world is gray
The world is The Asmo. :D
Quote
...who fights for equal rights of both sexes, and animals!! :D
Much like people, animals have what rights any given society grants them. Do you want animals to have equal rights to people, as implied by wording, or is it ok in your book to use the animals we have bred to be used?
Quote from: Asmodean on April 11, 2012, 07:23:31 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 11, 2012, 06:59:58 AM
I know the world is gray
The world is The Asmo. :D
Quote
...who fights for equal rights of both sexes, and animals!! :D
Much like people, animals have what rights any given society grants them. Do you want animals to have equal rights to people, as implied by wording, or is it ok in your book to use the animals we have bred to be used?
It's an Asmo witld.
I eat meat, don't get me wrong, but I want better, more humane conditions for them. They are a source of food. They shouldnt be tortured...
I would go further, but its bedtime x_x 2am .
...Not to mention a derail :P
Just wanted to clarify if equal rights for both sexes and animals were one thought or two separate ones ;D
Quote from: Asmodean on April 11, 2012, 07:43:30 AM
...Not to mention a derail :P
Just wanted to clarify if equal rights for both sexes and animals were one thought or two separate ones ;D
I think that both sexes of animals should have equal rights. :P
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 11, 2012, 09:59:36 AM
I think that both sexes of animals should have equal rights. :P
...to become lunch. ;D
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 11, 2012, 10:42:34 AM
...to become lunch. ;D
Yes. Some animals are very good at that right there. :D
Quote from: Asmodean on April 11, 2012, 10:58:57 AM
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 11, 2012, 10:42:34 AM
...to become lunch. ;D
Yes. Some animals are very good at that right there. :D
You guys are delusional. :D Everyone knows they're best for supper! ;D
(see how I un-derailed that?)
Quote from: Asherah on April 11, 2012, 03:51:07 AM
Yea, my brother came out as gay, but won't come out as an agnostic!!
'kin hell fire! That really just about says it all for America and 'free speech' doesn't it!
Quote from: Tank on April 11, 2012, 03:37:58 PM
Quote from: Asherah on April 11, 2012, 03:51:07 AM
Yea, my brother came out as gay, but won't come out as an agnostic!!
'kin hell fire! That really just about says it all for America and 'free speech' doesn't it!
America has free speech? When did that start?
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 11, 2012, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 11, 2012, 03:37:58 PM
Quote from: Asherah on April 11, 2012, 03:51:07 AM
Yea, my brother came out as gay, but won't come out as an agnostic!!
'kin hell fire! That really just about says it all for America and 'free speech' doesn't it!
America has free speech? When did that start?
It began and ended with the signing of the Constitution. Since the last signature, a lot of people have been trying very hard to ignore it!
Quote from: Beachdragon on April 11, 2012, 04:36:47 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 11, 2012, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 11, 2012, 03:37:58 PM
Quote from: Asherah on April 11, 2012, 03:51:07 AM
Yea, my brother came out as gay, but won't come out as an agnostic!!
'kin hell fire! That really just about says it all for America and 'free speech' doesn't it!
America has free speech? When did that start?
It began and ended with the signing of the Constitution. Since the last signature, a lot of people have been trying very hard to ignore it!
It's pretty dead now. Can't say "bomb" anywhere near an airport. Can't even make jokes to TSA officers. And that's just the law. Then there's societal pressure. Say you're gay and you get bullied in middle and high school. Say you're atheist and no one talks to you anymore, except to try to exorcise you. Say you're skeptical about the official story of the twin towers and you're labeled a "truther". At least you can admit you don't believe in Santa and Norse gods and still be considered sane.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 11, 2012, 04:42:07 PM
Quote from: Beachdragon on April 11, 2012, 04:36:47 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 11, 2012, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 11, 2012, 03:37:58 PM
Quote from: Asherah on April 11, 2012, 03:51:07 AM
Yea, my brother came out as gay, but won't come out as an agnostic!!
'kin hell fire! That really just about says it all for America and 'free speech' doesn't it!
America has free speech? When did that start?
It began and ended with the signing of the Constitution. Since the last signature, a lot of people have been trying very hard to ignore it!
It's pretty dead now. Can't say "bomb" anywhere near an airport. Can't even make jokes to TSA officers. And that's just the law. Then there's societal pressure. Say you're gay and you get bullied in middle and high school. Say you're atheist and no one talks to you anymore, except to try to exorcise you. Say you're skeptical about the official story of the twin towers and you're labeled a "truther". At least you can admit you don't believe in Santa and Norse gods and still be considered sane.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 11, 2012, 04:42:07 PM
It's pretty dead now.
I don't think so...there are lots of places in the world where it truly is dead.
QuoteCan't say "bomb" anywhere near an airport.
that's a safety issue as it could cause a riot. There are other similar anti-riot laws that prevent yelling bomb, fire etc in crowds.
QuoteCan't even make jokes to TSA officers. And that's just the law.
That's a law? I can't find record of it anywhere on the TSA website or in the Patriot Act. Joking a lot probably would be a good way to get pulled into the special room for further screening as it would be irregular behavior. Anyway, I'd be more concerned about the Patriot Act than what the TSA is specifically doing.
Quote
Then there's societal pressure. Say you're gay and you get bullied in middle and high school. Say you're atheist and no one talks to you anymore, except to try to exorcise you. Say you're skeptical about the official story of the twin towers and you're labeled a "truther".
I don't think peer pressure really counts as inhibiting the right to free speech...it's just others exercising their right.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 11, 2012, 04:42:07 PM
Quote from: Beachdragon on April 11, 2012, 04:36:47 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 11, 2012, 04:11:19 PM
Quote from: Tank on April 11, 2012, 03:37:58 PM
Quote from: Asherah on April 11, 2012, 03:51:07 AM
Yea, my brother came out as gay, but won't come out as an agnostic!!
'kin hell fire! That really just about says it all for America and 'free speech' doesn't it!
America has free speech? When did that start?
It began and ended with the signing of the Constitution. Since the last signature, a lot of people have been trying very hard to ignore it!
It's pretty dead now. Can't say "bomb" anywhere near an airport. Can't even make jokes to TSA officers. And that's just the law. Then there's societal pressure. Say you're gay and you get bullied in middle and high school. Say you're atheist and no one talks to you anymore, except to try to exorcise you. Say you're skeptical about the official story of the twin towers and you're labeled a "truther". At least you can admit you don't believe in Santa and Norse gods and still be considered sane.
Let's not go overboard here. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from societal pressure. Yes, maybe I'll call you a "truther" if you think the twin towers were a government plot. That's my right under free speech too. Neither one of us will be prosecuted for saying that, which is the point of free speech. Being bullied is definitely a horrible thing, but it's not a free-speech issue. If you're threatened or attacked, then that's assault, and the school is responsible for enforcing that. If they don't take responsibility, you have the right to go to the police, and so forth.
The "bomb" and joking with TSA officer quotes are analogous to the example of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, which is definitely not allowed. Yes, there are times when people have gone overboard in the name of public safety due to an innocuous remark, but that's a big leap in logic to infer that freedom of speech is "dead" because of that.
Quote from: Whitney on April 12, 2012, 02:47:29 AM
QuoteCan't say "bomb" anywhere near an airport.
that's a safety issue as it could cause a riot. There are other similar anti-riot laws that prevent yelling bomb, fire etc in crowds.
Not at all. If you're talking to your friend at an airport and decide to joke about having put a bomb in your luggage, that certainly won't cause a riot because no one will hear you, and if anyone does, they'll just realize that you're joking and won't care. But if a TSA officer hears you, they can detain you for it and treat you as a terrorist.
Quote
QuoteCan't even make jokes to TSA officers. And that's just the law.
That's a law? I can't find record of it anywhere on the TSA website or in the Patriot Act. Joking a lot probably would be a good way to get pulled into the special room for further screening as it would be irregular behavior. Anyway, I'd be more concerned about the Patriot Act than what the TSA is specifically doing.
You're either joking or completely oblivious to the state of airport security, at least in the United Sates (but I would assume it's no better in Europe). Every time I was in the Bush Intercontinental airport, every few minutes, an automated announcement would come one with TSA regulations, one of which clearly stated that making jokes was not allowed.
Quote
Quote
Then there's societal pressure. Say you're gay and you get bullied in middle and high school. Say you're atheist and no one talks to you anymore, except to try to exorcise you. Say you're skeptical about the official story of the twin towers and you're labeled a "truther".
I don't think peer pressure really counts as inhibiting the right to free speech...it's just others exercising their right.
I disagree completely. What is the law, other than the strongest manifestation (in an orderly society, anyway) of social pressure? I may very well be "allowed" to say something, according to the law, but if everyone I ever say it to insults me, berates me, ridicules me, or becomes physically violent against me for saying it, then I'm really not free to say it. That isn't freedom of speech at all. True freedom of speech is when people are allowed to say things without any fear of personal harm for doing so. To say that you have freedom of speech when you are ridiculed for speaking is to deceive yourself.
We're so far from an enlightened society it's a complete farce. People should be able to share their own ideas and be heard and considered, not dismissed and ridiculed. That isn't free speech. It's the rule of the majority. If you have an idea that's unpopular, you're beat into the ground. That's primitive. If you don't have evidence to produce to support your own opinion or to call another person's into question, then you're just bullying the other person. To tell someone "your opinion doesn't matter because you're just a nutty truther" or "you're an idiot because you believe in god" is to avoid rational discussion. It is to deny reason. And it is to deny free speech, by attempting to silence someone simply because you disagree with them. That is not right, nor will I endorse it.
Quote from: Whitney on April 12, 2012, 02:47:29 AM
Anyway, I'd be more concerned about the Patriot Act than what the TSA is specifically doing.
Yes, the PATRIOT Act is something to be concerned about, but it's really just a minor step in the process. The NDAA is far worse--authorizing indefinite detention without trial of anyone. That's far worse, in the way of violation of individual rights. And I don't doubt that it will continue in this direction until some sort of revolution happens. It is the course of history, happening time and again in every civilization.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 12, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
You're either joking or completely oblivious to the state of airport security, at least in the United Sates (but I would assume it's no better in Europe). Every time I was in the Bush Intercontinental airport, every few minutes, an automated announcement would come one with TSA regulations, one of which clearly stated that making jokes was not allowed.
I'm sure they won't be bothering you for a simple 'knock-knock' joke, however I believe the joking they may be speaking of is joking about anything the TSA is there to find prior to boarding an airplane. Now if the knock-knock joke's punchline is "A BOMB!"...then I think they might have issue.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 12, 2012, 04:12:47 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 12, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
You're either joking or completely oblivious to the state of airport security, at least in the United Sates (but I would assume it's no better in Europe). Every time I was in the Bush Intercontinental airport, every few minutes, an automated announcement would come one with TSA regulations, one of which clearly stated that making jokes was not allowed.
I'm sure they won't be bothering you for a simple 'knock-knock' joke, however I believe the joking they may be speaking of is joking about anything the TSA is there to find prior to boarding an airplane. Now if the knock-knock joke's punchline is "A BOMB!"...then I think they might have issue.
I work security, and we HATE those jokes! Because we can't always assume that the person is in fact joking. As a matter of security we can never assume that someone who is joking with a friend is actually joking. And then people get mad at us because they made our job more difficult.
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 12, 2012, 04:50:23 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 12, 2012, 04:12:47 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 12, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
You're either joking or completely oblivious to the state of airport security, at least in the United Sates (but I would assume it's no better in Europe). Every time I was in the Bush Intercontinental airport, every few minutes, an automated announcement would come one with TSA regulations, one of which clearly stated that making jokes was not allowed.
I'm sure they won't be bothering you for a simple 'knock-knock' joke, however I believe the joking they may be speaking of is joking about anything the TSA is there to find prior to boarding an airplane. Now if the knock-knock joke's punchline is "A BOMB!"...then I think they might have issue.
I work security, and we HATE those jokes! Because we can't always assume that the person is in fact joking. As a matter of security we can never assume that someone who is joking with a friend is actually joking. And then people get mad at us because they made our job more difficult.
Well there you go.
Keithpenrod is more right than he is wrong.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 12, 2012, 04:58:45 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 12, 2012, 04:50:23 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 12, 2012, 04:12:47 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 12, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
You're either joking or completely oblivious to the state of airport security, at least in the United Sates (but I would assume it's no better in Europe). Every time I was in the Bush Intercontinental airport, every few minutes, an automated announcement would come one with TSA regulations, one of which clearly stated that making jokes was not allowed.
I'm sure they won't be bothering you for a simple 'knock-knock' joke, however I believe the joking they may be speaking of is joking about anything the TSA is there to find prior to boarding an airplane. Now if the knock-knock joke's punchline is "A BOMB!"...then I think they might have issue.
I work security, and we HATE those jokes! Because we can't always assume that the person is in fact joking. As a matter of security we can never assume that someone who is joking with a friend is actually joking. And then people get mad at us because they made our job more difficult.
Well there you go. Keithpenrod is more right than he is wrong.
Well, here in Norway it is in no way illegal to crack jokes. It's just annoying.
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 12, 2012, 06:42:36 PM
Well, here in Norway it is in no way illegal to crack jokes. It's just annoying.
Most jokes are, in my experience, usually made in all the wrong places and situations. Some people try using those as ice-breakers too... Subjectively, "gotta light?" works better. Both as ice breaker and in awkward silence.
Quote from: Asmodean on April 12, 2012, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 12, 2012, 06:42:36 PM
Well, here in Norway it is in no way illegal to crack jokes. It's just annoying.
Most jokes are, in my experience, usually made in all the wrong places and situations. Some people try using those as ice-breakers too... Subjectively, "gotta light?" works better. Both as ice breaker and in awkward silence.
What if you don't smoke? Like, if I went up to someone and said "Gotta light?", they pulled it out, and I said "Oh good. I don't smoke, I was just making conversation." Is that a better or worse ice breaker than a bomb joke? ;D
Quote from: The Ali on April 12, 2012, 07:12:26 PM
What if you don't smoke? Like, if I went up to someone and said "Gotta light?", they pulled it out, and I said "Oh good. I don't smoke, I was just making conversation." Is that a better or worse ice breaker than a bomb joke? ;D
It is, in itself, a joke/prank. Therefor, it sucks for those purposes. You can also pretend to need to write something down and ask to borrow a pen if you are in a no-smoking area or if you yourself are... A non-smoking area.
Quote from: Asmodean on April 12, 2012, 07:15:32 PM
Quote from: The Ali on April 12, 2012, 07:12:26 PM
What if you don't smoke? Like, if I went up to someone and said "Gotta light?", they pulled it out, and I said "Oh good. I don't smoke, I was just making conversation." Is that a better or worse ice breaker than a bomb joke? ;D
It is, in itself, a joke/prank. Therefor, it sucks for those purposes. You can also pretend to need to write something down and ask to borrow a pen if you are in a no-smoking area or if you yourself are... A non-smoking area.
*Sad panda Ali*
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 12, 2012, 04:12:47 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 12, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
You're either joking or completely oblivious to the state of airport security, at least in the United Sates (but I would assume it's no better in Europe). Every time I was in the Bush Intercontinental airport, every few minutes, an automated announcement would come one with TSA regulations, one of which clearly stated that making jokes was not allowed.
I'm sure they won't be bothering you for a simple 'knock-knock' joke, however I believe the joking they may be speaking of is joking about anything the TSA is there to find prior to boarding an airplane. Now if the knock-knock joke's punchline is "A BOMB!"...then I think they might have issue.
That's precisely what I mean.
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 12, 2012, 04:50:23 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 12, 2012, 04:12:47 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 12, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
You're either joking or completely oblivious to the state of airport security, at least in the United Sates (but I would assume it's no better in Europe). Every time I was in the Bush Intercontinental airport, every few minutes, an automated announcement would come one with TSA regulations, one of which clearly stated that making jokes was not allowed.
I'm sure they won't be bothering you for a simple 'knock-knock' joke, however I believe the joking they may be speaking of is joking about anything the TSA is there to find prior to boarding an airplane. Now if the knock-knock joke's punchline is "A BOMB!"...then I think they might have issue.
I work security, and we HATE those jokes! Because we can't always assume that the person is in fact joking. As a matter of security we can never assume that someone who is joking with a friend is actually joking. And then people get mad at us because they made our job more difficult.
No wonder the security isn't effective, if you're taking everyone seriously. You spend all your time on jokes and false threats. How is that in any way beneficial? Make your own job easier by not being so uptight about it.
Honestly, lots of people are sarcastic. And most people aren't terrorists. Most people aren't even dangerous in any real sense. So, if you assume they are dangerous, by making them take off their shoes, belt, jacket, and telling them they can't even carry a water bottle onto a plane because they might shake it up and explode the plane they're on, then they're going to make a joke about it. They're going to point out how ridiculous it is for you to assume that everyone getting on the plane is a threat to security. They're going to feel intimidated by the ridiculously rigorous security, and humor is one way to lighten the situation. I mean, if you ask me "do you have a bomb in there", I'm going to reply with "No, actually I have three." not because I actually have bombs in my backpack, but because you suggesting the idea that I have one is absurd.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 13, 2012, 12:16:06 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 12, 2012, 04:12:47 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 12, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
You're either joking or completely oblivious to the state of airport security, at least in the United Sates (but I would assume it's no better in Europe). Every time I was in the Bush Intercontinental airport, every few minutes, an automated announcement would come one with TSA regulations, one of which clearly stated that making jokes was not allowed.
I'm sure they won't be bothering you for a simple 'knock-knock' joke, however I believe the joking they may be speaking of is joking about anything the TSA is there to find prior to boarding an airplane. Now if the knock-knock joke's punchline is "A BOMB!"...then I think they might have issue.
That's precisely what I mean.
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 12, 2012, 04:50:23 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on April 12, 2012, 04:12:47 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 12, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
You're either joking or completely oblivious to the state of airport security, at least in the United Sates (but I would assume it's no better in Europe). Every time I was in the Bush Intercontinental airport, every few minutes, an automated announcement would come one with TSA regulations, one of which clearly stated that making jokes was not allowed.
I'm sure they won't be bothering you for a simple 'knock-knock' joke, however I believe the joking they may be speaking of is joking about anything the TSA is there to find prior to boarding an airplane. Now if the knock-knock joke's punchline is "A BOMB!"...then I think they might have issue.
I work security, and we HATE those jokes! Because we can't always assume that the person is in fact joking. As a matter of security we can never assume that someone who is joking with a friend is actually joking. And then people get mad at us because they made our job more difficult.
No wonder the security isn't effective, if you're taking everyone seriously. You spend all your time on jokes and false threats. How is that in any way beneficial? Make your own job easier by not being so uptight about it.
Honestly, lots of people are sarcastic. And most people aren't terrorists. Most people aren't even dangerous in any real sense. So, if you assume they are dangerous, by making them take off their shoes, belt, jacket, and telling them they can't even carry a water bottle onto a plane because they might shake it up and explode the plane they're on, then they're going to make a joke about it. They're going to point out how ridiculous it is for you to assume that everyone getting on the plane is a threat to security. They're going to feel intimidated by the ridiculously rigorous security, and humor is one way to lighten the situation. I mean, if you ask me "do you have a bomb in there", I'm going to reply with "No, actually I have three." not because I actually have bombs in my backpack, but because you suggesting the idea that I have one is absurd.
A false positive is better than an overlooked or ignored positive. ::)
I can actually understand why a security guard would jump on every single suspicion. There's no room for overlooked threats.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 12, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
I disagree completely. What is the law, other than the strongest manifestation (in an orderly society, anyway) of social pressure? I may very well be "allowed" to say something, according to the law, but if everyone I ever say it to insults me, berates me, ridicules me, or becomes physically violent against me for saying it, then I'm really not free to say it. That isn't freedom of speech at all. True freedom of speech is when people are allowed to say things without any fear of personal harm for doing so. To say that you have freedom of speech when you are ridiculed for speaking is to deceive yourself.
We're so far from an enlightened society it's a complete farce. People should be able to share their own ideas and be heard and considered, not dismissed and ridiculed. That isn't free speech. It's the rule of the majority. If you have an idea that's unpopular, you're beat into the ground. That's primitive. If you don't have evidence to produce to support your own opinion or to call another person's into question, then you're just bullying the other person. To tell someone "your opinion doesn't matter because you're just a nutty truther" or "you're an idiot because you believe in god" is to avoid rational discussion. It is to deny reason. And it is to deny free speech, by attempting to silence someone simply because you disagree with them. That is not right, nor will I endorse it.
Do you also have the right to not be offended?
Also, free speech is not completely free, but that's besides the point. It's not about being able to say whatever you want. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and cause a human stampede in which someone gets seriously hurt (which is actually very probable), that's one good reason why people shouldn't be free to yell "fire" in a crowed place. People usually have the common sense to see such a chain of events happening in a worst case scenario and so know that even though they have the mental and physical capacity to yell a word, they really shouldn't.
As for violence, I agree that if someone has physically harmed you for voicing your opinion, then they feel a bit too entitled to not being offended. That's a different case altogether and they should be held accountable for it. using speech to incite violence too, does not constitute free in the sense of the word.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 13, 2012, 12:16:06 AM
No wonder the security isn't effective, if you're taking everyone seriously. You spend all your time on jokes and false threats. How is that in any way beneficial? Make your own job easier by not being so uptight about it.
Honestly, lots of people are sarcastic. And most people aren't terrorists. Most people aren't even dangerous in any real sense. So, if you assume they are dangerous, by making them take off their shoes, belt, jacket, and telling them they can't even carry a water bottle onto a plane because they might shake it up and explode the plane they're on, then they're going to make a joke about it. They're going to point out how ridiculous it is for you to assume that everyone getting on the plane is a threat to security. They're going to feel intimidated by the ridiculously rigorous security, and humor is one way to lighten the situation. I mean, if you ask me "do you have a bomb in there", I'm going to reply with "No, actually I have three." not because I actually have bombs in my backpack, but because you suggesting the idea that I have one is absurd.
If you "drop the ball" in the office (I don't know what you actually do for a living, it's just an example) the files have to be resorted and copied and that solves the problem.
If a security guard at the air port let's one past in the worst case you have an aircraft with 200 people blow up over a populated area. See the difference?
That is why security take their jobs seriously.
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 13, 2012, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 13, 2012, 12:16:06 AM
No wonder the security isn't effective, if you're taking everyone seriously. You spend all your time on jokes and false threats. How is that in any way beneficial? Make your own job easier by not being so uptight about it.
Honestly, lots of people are sarcastic. And most people aren't terrorists. Most people aren't even dangerous in any real sense. So, if you assume they are dangerous, by making them take off their shoes, belt, jacket, and telling them they can't even carry a water bottle onto a plane because they might shake it up and explode the plane they're on, then they're going to make a joke about it. They're going to point out how ridiculous it is for you to assume that everyone getting on the plane is a threat to security. They're going to feel intimidated by the ridiculously rigorous security, and humor is one way to lighten the situation. I mean, if you ask me "do you have a bomb in there", I'm going to reply with "No, actually I have three." not because I actually have bombs in my backpack, but because you suggesting the idea that I have one is absurd.
If you "drop the ball" in the office (I don't know what you actually do for a living, it's just an example) the files have to be resorted and copied and that solves the problem.
If a security guard at the air port let's one past in the worst case you have an aircraft with 200 people blow up over a populated area. See the difference?
That is why security take their jobs seriously.
So, you're telling me that someone who has a bomb in his suitcase is going to say so to a TSA officer? That's not taking your job seriously, that's having silly assumptions. If I have a bomb, the last thing I'm going to do is go around telling people about it--especially in earshot of TSA. So, to assume that someone has a bomb because they say they do seems like a stupid assumption to me.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 13, 2012, 02:05:10 AM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 12, 2012, 10:42:43 AM
I disagree completely. What is the law, other than the strongest manifestation (in an orderly society, anyway) of social pressure? I may very well be "allowed" to say something, according to the law, but if everyone I ever say it to insults me, berates me, ridicules me, or becomes physically violent against me for saying it, then I'm really not free to say it. That isn't freedom of speech at all. True freedom of speech is when people are allowed to say things without any fear of personal harm for doing so. To say that you have freedom of speech when you are ridiculed for speaking is to deceive yourself.
We're so far from an enlightened society it's a complete farce. People should be able to share their own ideas and be heard and considered, not dismissed and ridiculed. That isn't free speech. It's the rule of the majority. If you have an idea that's unpopular, you're beat into the ground. That's primitive. If you don't have evidence to produce to support your own opinion or to call another person's into question, then you're just bullying the other person. To tell someone "your opinion doesn't matter because you're just a nutty truther" or "you're an idiot because you believe in god" is to avoid rational discussion. It is to deny reason. And it is to deny free speech, by attempting to silence someone simply because you disagree with them. That is not right, nor will I endorse it.
Do you also have the right to not be offended?
Also, free speech is not completely free, but that's besides the point. It's not about being able to say whatever you want. If you yell "fire" in a crowded theatre and cause a human stampede in which someone gets seriously hurt (which is actually very probable), that's one good reason why people shouldn't be free to yell "fire" in a crowed place. People usually have the common sense to see such a chain of events happening in a worst case scenario and so know that even though they have the mental and physical capacity to yell a word, they really shouldn't.
As for violence, I agree that if someone has physically harmed you for voicing your opinion, then they feel a bit too entitled to not being offended. That's a different case altogether and they should be held accountable for it. using speech to incite violence too, does not constitute free in the sense of the word.
To answer your question, no. No one has the right to not be offended. As for everything else you said, that's merely paraphrasing what I've been trying to say. So I'll have no choice but to agree with you.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 13, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
As for everything else you said, that's merely paraphrasing what I've been trying to say. So I'll have no choice but to agree with you.
Oh, ok. I should really skimm over the words on these threads a little less and stop to read them. ::)
oh well, that was my rant for the morning, and it got me fired up so yeah, wasn't completely useless. ;D
Btw, i like your new icon, Silver.
Thanks. Though it looks a bit like something from a news channel :D
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on April 13, 2012, 07:18:26 PM
Thanks. Though it looks a bit like something from a news channel :D
LOL! Kind of. :)
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 13, 2012, 06:26:47 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 13, 2012, 09:23:07 AM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 13, 2012, 12:16:06 AM
No wonder the security isn't effective, if you're taking everyone seriously. You spend all your time on jokes and false threats. How is that in any way beneficial? Make your own job easier by not being so uptight about it.
Honestly, lots of people are sarcastic. And most people aren't terrorists. Most people aren't even dangerous in any real sense. So, if you assume they are dangerous, by making them take off their shoes, belt, jacket, and telling them they can't even carry a water bottle onto a plane because they might shake it up and explode the plane they're on, then they're going to make a joke about it. They're going to point out how ridiculous it is for you to assume that everyone getting on the plane is a threat to security. They're going to feel intimidated by the ridiculously rigorous security, and humor is one way to lighten the situation. I mean, if you ask me "do you have a bomb in there", I'm going to reply with "No, actually I have three." not because I actually have bombs in my backpack, but because you suggesting the idea that I have one is absurd.
If you "drop the ball" in the office (I don't know what you actually do for a living, it's just an example) the files have to be resorted and copied and that solves the problem.
If a security guard at the air port let's one past in the worst case you have an aircraft with 200 people blow up over a populated area. See the difference?
That is why security take their jobs seriously.
So, you're telling me that someone who has a bomb in his suitcase is going to say so to a TSA officer? That's not taking your job seriously, that's having silly assumptions. If I have a bomb, the last thing I'm going to do is go around telling people about it--especially in earshot of TSA. So, to assume that someone has a bomb because they say they do seems like a stupid assumption to me.
It is also not only the security guy who hears you make jokes about having guns or bombs. It is also the other people in line who hear snippets of your conversation and only catch the bit about "...have a bomb..." (the word "bomb" being very easily recognisable). These people become worried because they have just heard a person talk about bombs in an airport, something most people have bad assosiations with. Even if you think that is a stupid reason to ask exstra questions, it is a fact that this happens.
And what happens the day a bomber cracks a bomb joke and gets written of as a joker? Bomb on plane.
And here is a thought experiment for you: A cop asks you if you know something about a robbery that happened on a street you were on.
If you say "Yes, I did it!", do you really expect the cop to not look into that more closely? He would not be doing his job if he doesn't follow that up somehow.
I am glad that security guards take their jobs seriously. It's an important job, and as Guardian said, there could be huge impacts if they didn't.
Quote from: The Ali on April 13, 2012, 08:13:05 PM
I am glad that security guards take their jobs seriously. It's an important job, and as Guardian said, there could be huge impacts if they didn't.
Like people getting on planes with nail clippers. XP
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 13, 2012, 09:11:22 PM
Quote from: The Ali on April 13, 2012, 08:13:05 PM
I am glad that security guards take their jobs seriously. It's an important job, and as Guardian said, there could be huge impacts if they didn't.
Like people getting on planes with nail clippers. XP
You wouldn't be so flip about it if you had ever had anyone hold you down and give you a manicure against your will. *solemn face*
;D ;D ;D ;D
Personally I don't see a problem with a security guard doing everything in their power to effectively do their and that includes investigating comments about bombs et al. However what does annoy me is the way some security people act after they have determined there was no threat. They continue to press ludicrous public order charges.
I was in an airport in Frankfurt, Germany a few years ago and there was a list of things you couldn't take on the plane, such as the usual guns, knives, etc.. But down on the list was "pickles." I never understood that one. Can you make a pickle bomb or do you squirt pickle juice in peoples' eyes? Dunno.
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 13, 2012, 07:33:07 PM
It is also not only the security guy who hears you make jokes about having guns or bombs. It is also the other people in line who hear snippets of your conversation and only catch the bit about "...have a bomb..." (the word "bomb" being very easily recognisable). These people become worried because they have just heard a person talk about bombs in an airport, something most people have bad assosiations with. Even if you think that is a stupid reason to ask exstra questions, it is a fact that this happens.
And what happens the day a bomber cracks a bomb joke and gets written of as a joker? Bomb on plane.
And here is a thought experiment for you: A cop asks you if you know something about a robbery that happened on a street you were on.
If you say "Yes, I did it!", do you really expect the cop to not look into that more closely? He would not be doing his job if he doesn't follow that up somehow.
And you wonder why people make jokes?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 13, 2012, 09:11:22 PM
Quote from: The Ali on April 13, 2012, 08:13:05 PM
I am glad that security guards take their jobs seriously. It's an important job, and as Guardian said, there could be huge impacts if they didn't.
Like people getting on planes with nail clippers. XP
Thank you. That's my point. Make some real, actually effective rules for security at an airport and then I'll take you seriously. But confiscating people's toothpaste and nail clippers just makes me think you're ridiculous.
Why are we talking about airport security anyway? Doesn't that seem like a lightyear away from the actual topic of this thread?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on April 13, 2012, 09:11:22 PM
Quote from: The Ali on April 13, 2012, 08:13:05 PM
I am glad that security guards take their jobs seriously. It's an important job, and as Guardian said, there could be huge impacts if they didn't.
Like people getting on planes with nail clippers. XP
The nail clipper is actually a pretty good way to make a shank (improvised stabbing weapon). I won't say how, since this is an open forum, but there is a pretty simple way to make it into a weapon. They are in fact also illegal in prisons for this very reason.
And can you tell the difference between a toothpaste tube filled with toothpaste and one filled with RDX just from looking?
The system is not perfect, I'll be the first to agree with that, but can you come up with something better?
And yeah, this is one of the more spectacular derails.
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 13, 2012, 11:04:32 PM
And can you tell the difference between a toothpaste tube filled with toothpaste and one filled with RDX just from looking?
Nope, can't say I can. No idea what RDX is or what it looks like. Now, I don't know about other countries, but in USA, TSA doesn't just look at my stuff. They use an X-ray. Can you detect it with an x-ray? I don't know that either. If you can, I'd suggest just confiscating the tubes of toothpaste that are explosive, not everyone's. But, now I have a question for you. Does it set off metal detectors? If it's so hard to detect, what's to stop me from having a bag of the stuff in my pocket when I go through the security line. Do you think that every flier should be required to strip to the nude to prove they're not carrying anything dangerous? No one would ever fly. The line between catching terrorists and terrorizing innocent passengers has to be drawn somewhere. Be reasonable.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 13, 2012, 11:23:00 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 13, 2012, 11:04:32 PM
And can you tell the difference between a toothpaste tube filled with toothpaste and one filled with RDX just from looking?
Nope, can't say I can. No idea what RDX is or what it looks like. Now, I don't know about other countries, but in USA, TSA doesn't just look at my stuff. They use an X-ray. Can you detect it with an x-ray? I don't know that either. If you can, I'd suggest just confiscating the tubes of toothpaste that are explosive, not everyone's. But, now I have a question for you. Does it set off metal detectors? If it's so hard to detect, what's to stop me from having a bag of the stuff in my pocket when I go through the security line. Do you think that every flier should be required to strip to the nude to prove they're not carrying anything dangerous? No one would ever fly. The line between catching terrorists and terrorizing innocent passengers has to be drawn somewhere. Be reasonable.
RDX is often refered to by it's tactical designation C4. It is a patty that can be shaped into any form or container. And very few explosives will set off metal detectors. That's why you complement the search system with random manual checks.
As detection equipment becomes more effective, it will be easier to do more thorough checks while being less invasive, but until then the flawed system we have is better then nothing.
Do I think every passenger should have to strip nude? Of course not. I'm not that much of a pervert. :P
I agree that there must be a line drawn on how invasive you can be without specific suspicions, but having to pack my nail clippers in my suitcase and taking off my shoes is not that bad in my opinion. And I say that both as a security professional and as a frequent passenger.
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 13, 2012, 11:53:26 PM
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 13, 2012, 11:23:00 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 13, 2012, 11:04:32 PM
And can you tell the difference between a toothpaste tube filled with toothpaste and one filled with RDX just from looking?
Nope, can't say I can. No idea what RDX is or what it looks like. Now, I don't know about other countries, but in USA, TSA doesn't just look at my stuff. They use an X-ray. Can you detect it with an x-ray? I don't know that either. If you can, I'd suggest just confiscating the tubes of toothpaste that are explosive, not everyone's. But, now I have a question for you. Does it set off metal detectors? If it's so hard to detect, what's to stop me from having a bag of the stuff in my pocket when I go through the security line. Do you think that every flier should be required to strip to the nude to prove they're not carrying anything dangerous? No one would ever fly. The line between catching terrorists and terrorizing innocent passengers has to be drawn somewhere. Be reasonable.
RDX is often refered to by it's tactical designation C4. It is a patty that can be shaped into any form or container. And very few explosives will set off metal detectors. That's why you complement the search system with random manual checks.
As detection equipment becomes more effective, it will be easier to do more thorough checks while being less invasive, but until then the flawed system we have is better then nothing.
Do I think every passenger should have to strip nude? Of course not. I'm not that much of a pervert. :P
I agree that there must be a line drawn on how invasive you can be without specific suspicions, but having to pack my nail clippers in my suitcase and taking off my shoes is not that bad in my opinion. And I say that both as a security professional and as a frequent passenger.
And all I'm saying is that, nuisance aside, the system we have is not logical. If I can just sneak C4 through the metal detector in my pocket, then why would I stick it in a tube of toothpaste and put it through the x-ray machine? This means that confiscating all liquids and gels is meaningless because people can still get it through and in the meantime, tons (literally) of good and non-explosive hygiene products and bottled water are thrown away (probably much less so now that people are more familiar with the liquids/gels rule, but definitely a huge amount when the rule first started). So the present system is ineffective at actually catching terrorists and very effective at inconveniencing passengers. (For the record, most of the time I travel I do carry-on only, so being forced to check anything is a nuisance.)
As for the random checks, that is largely ineffective at catching terrorists. Now, with law-abiding people, that may be effective. For example, if the police patrol a particular stretch of road and issue a large number of speeding tickets, then people will start driving under the speed limit in that area. This is because law-abiding people would rather not have all the hassle with getting a ticket--yes, they don't mind breaking the law by driving fast because they're impatient, but their impatience is outweighed by their desire to avoid legal action against them, even if it's something as trivial as paying a fine or showing up in court and saying "I'm sorry, your honor." But I don't think that terrorists think that way. They're just going to think "Well, they only select 1 out of 100 (I don't know the real number, I'm just making that up) of passengers for the random specialized search. So, my odds of being searched are low. I can get away with it." So, they aren't any less likely to attempt it. If every person were searched, then terrorists would likely be discouraged from attempting sneaking a bomb through because they'd be pretty sure they'd be caught. But, a random search won't have that effect.
But, honestly, all of this ridiculous security nonsense is clearly seen to be just a charade. There is virtually no security outside of the "secured area" in an airport. That doesn't mean just outside the airport--there are large parts of the inside of the airport that are outside the secured zone. It would be no more difficult for a terrorist to plant and ignite a bomb in any of those areas as it would be for them to do so in any other place. So, why don't they? Because terrorists aren't anywhere near as common as we think they are. Honestly, think about how many people they could kill by putting a bomb in an airport, just outside of the secured area. They could even destroy lots of planes at the airport. But they don't. I can't say I've heard a single story about an airport bomb. What is this strange belief we have that terrorists only blow up airplanes? Like they wait until the plane has taken off and kill just the hundred or two people aboard, rather than the thousands that are in the airport.
To me, it seems an awful lot like the irrational belief in god. You think there's this magical terrorist person out there who wants to hijack or blow up a plane. You don't think about him blowing up the airport or your bank or just a normal building. You don't think about him exploding an elementary school, killing hundreds of children. Why not? Probably for the same reason Christians think that there was a talking snake 6,000 years ago, but they don't honestly expect snakes nowadays to talk. What's so special about the plane itself that we think that terrorists want to explode them but not anything else?
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 13, 2012, 11:53:26 PM
Do I think every passenger should have to strip nude? Of course not. I'm not that much of a pervert. :P
*Biting lip not to make comments about the Naughty Terrorist and the Sexy Security Guard*
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on April 13, 2012, 10:29:36 PM
I was in an airport in Frankfurt, Germany a few years ago and there was a list of things you couldn't take on the plane, such as the usual guns, knives, etc.. But down on the list was "pickles." I never understood that one. Can you make a pickle bomb or do you squirt pickle juice in peoples' eyes? Dunno.
It's obviously because if you were to open a jar of pickles on the plane, to make a quick snack for yourself, people would be tugging and shoving at eachother to get close enough to you to ask if you'd share, thus causing a safety hazard which can then cause the plane to crash if the pilot includes himself among those people. Pickles...dangerous and tastiest of morsels, those.
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 13, 2012, 11:53:26 PM
RDX is often refered to by it's tactical designation C4. It is a patty that can be shaped into any form or container. And very few explosives will set off metal detectors. That's why you complement the search system with random manual checks.
As detection equipment becomes more effective, it will be easier to do more thorough checks while being less invasive, but until then the flawed system we have is better then nothing.
Do I think every passenger should have to strip nude? Of course not. I'm not that much of a pervert. :P
They should make more use of highly trained dogs for the task, saves time and isn't nearly as invasive.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 14, 2012, 12:22:43 AM
What's so special about the plane itself that we think that terrorists want to explode them but not anything else?
Answer: experience. Airplanes have often been used as a tool by terrorists. Terrorists used to hijack them a lot in the 70's, such as the Air France jet that was forced to fly to Entebbe. Pan Am Flight 103 was blown up by Libyan agents. 9/11, of course. Richard Reid. The Christmas Day bomber a couple of years ago. So of course there's going to be heightened security when it comes to air travel, because it's been used as an effective tool in the past, and they continue to be used as an attempted weapon to this day. It'd be foolish not to do so. Maybe the reasons aren't entirely logical, but people don't operate on pure logic. There's an emotional and psychological factor behind all actions, including the belief by terrorists that focusing on airplanes has been the way to go. Who knows why?
This is not to say we focus only on air travel and ignore all other possible targets. Believe me, if terrorists happened to strike the subway or schools, you'd see heightened security there too. That includes airports. There have been airport bombings in the past, such as at La Guardia in the 70's, or the shootings at LAX about 10 years ago. But while you may hate all of the heightened security and perhaps some of it is a tad unnecessary, there also has not been a successful terrorist attack in the US since 9/11, and that's not from lack of trying on the part of Al Qaeda. So something is obviously working. You really can't say definitively that none of it works.
I don't agree with every step that's been taken in the name of "security". Warrantless wiretapping of people is an offense against civil rights. The Patriot Act is a scary tool and needs to be re-examined and revamped. Torture should never be allowed under any circumstances. But inconveniencing me a little bit in the name of security which has been shown to be at least somewhat effective is fine by me.
Quote from: The Ali on April 14, 2012, 01:03:35 AM
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 13, 2012, 11:53:26 PM
Do I think every passenger should have to strip nude? Of course not. I'm not that much of a pervert. :P
*Biting lip not to make comments about the Naughty Terrorist and the Sexy Security Guard*
That does sound like a fun role-play. :o
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 14, 2012, 10:55:33 AM
Quote from: The Ali on April 14, 2012, 01:03:35 AM
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 13, 2012, 11:53:26 PM
Do I think every passenger should have to strip nude? Of course not. I'm not that much of a pervert. :P
*Biting lip not to make comments about the Naughty Terrorist and the Sexy Security Guard*
That does sound like a fun role-play. :o
One other very important problem with weapon-like objects on planes is a thing called air rage. This is when you have a passenger (or lately in one case a crewmember) flip out and try to hurt other passengers. This is one of the most common undesireable airborne incidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rage
Imagine how such an incident would be aggravated with the introduction of something as simple as a pair of knitting needles, or a can of aerosol spray (deodorant, hair spray, etc.) or a flammable petroleum based gel (hair creme).
Quote from: The Ali on April 14, 2012, 01:03:35 AM
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 13, 2012, 11:53:26 PM
Do I think every passenger should have to strip nude? Of course not. I'm not that much of a pervert. :P
*Biting lip not to make comments about the Naughty Terrorist and the Sexy Security Guard*
And I think I saw that film. ;)
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 14, 2012, 12:13:04 PM
One other very important problem with weapon-like objects on planes is a thing called air rage. This is when you have a passenger (or lately in one case a crewmember) flip out and try to hurt other passengers. This is one of the most common undesireable airborne incidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rage
Imagine how such an incident would be aggravated with the introduction of something as simple as a pair of knitting needles, or a can of aerosol spray (deodorant, hair spray, etc.) or a flammable petroleum based gel (hair creme).
Imagine how easy it would be for the passengers to overpower the stewards/stewardesses and pilot(s) without any weapons at all, if they all acted as a team in cooperation. Imagine how easy it would be for god to smite the plane down mid-flight, and disintegrating all of the people and the plane itself into particles of dust.
Or what if the Flying Spaghetti Monster decided to touch the plane's navigation system with his noodly appendage? I bet one of his meatballs could easily clog up either or both of the jet engines. We really need to be ready for any possible scenario.
True, Our Noodly Master does indeed have power to do such things. However He's far too laid back to bother, even in His sober moments. We might need to worry more about fringe lactoportarians.
Quote from: keithpenrod on April 14, 2012, 12:35:47 PM
Quote from: Guardian85 on April 14, 2012, 12:13:04 PM
One other very important problem with weapon-like objects on planes is a thing called air rage. This is when you have a passenger (or lately in one case a crewmember) flip out and try to hurt other passengers. This is one of the most common undesireable airborne incidents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rage
Imagine how such an incident would be aggravated with the introduction of something as simple as a pair of knitting needles, or a can of aerosol spray (deodorant, hair spray, etc.) or a flammable petroleum based gel (hair creme).
Imagine how easy it would be for the passengers to overpower the stewards/stewardesses and pilot(s) without any weapons at all, if they all acted as a team in cooperation. Imagine how easy it would be for god to smite the plane down mid-flight, and disintegrating all of the people and the plane itself into particles of dust.
Or what if the Flying Spaghetti Monster decided to touch the plane's navigation system with his noodly appendage? I bet one of his meatballs could easily clog up either or both of the jet engines. We really need to be ready for any possible scenario.
His Sauciness' Meatball appearing inside one of the engines, now that's something I would like to see! :o
Quote from: OldGit on April 14, 2012, 12:54:48 PM
True, Our Noodly Master does indeed have power to do such things. However He's far too laid back to bother, even in His sober moments.
Be that the case, one could try making a blood sacrifice to The Asmo. Clay, it can clog shit up, and better than meat balls at times. :D