| Tuesday, January 11, 2005 - 11:19 am |
"Its a typical bleeding heart response, try to let the person hang themselves with their own arguement."
Don't worry, you had already done that with each of your first posts in this thread.
"That sounds like you are mentioning ethics to me."
I mentioned no ethical judgment of the shirt or of your postings. I merely posted a joke of a shirt for which the argument could be made that "that isn't funny"-- not saying that Guido is right, but making the point that your opinion is unsupportable with reference to Guido's. Guido has an opinion that is arguable, and you are saying "oh noes, you are trying to suppress freedom of speech!" Freedom of speech applies to government regulation of private speech, and furthermore, Guido merely stated that he did not find the badly written post that started this worthless thread to be funny. He did not say "IT MUST BE BANNED!" So really, you've gotten entirely too emotional and worked up over what is in reality a false accusation.
What I object to is your lynching of Guido for no viable reason. Guido has an opinion that he expressed. The 5th, 6th, and 4th amendments to the US Constitution have nothing to do with it. The first doesn't either, except that it is private speech, and Guido has the right to say anything he pleases as long as W3C is OK with it. Guido even has the right to say that something isn't funny, or to say that someone else's post isn't worth the bandwidth it takes to send it to our computers. (Insane, I know!)
But this is why I call you an idiot:
"You find is sad that no-body has contempt for Crows post but what is interesting is we are all playing a real world simulation game and Crows reasoning for going to war and conquering a nation was because of the attrocities and evil..is that a bad thing to do? Stopping genocide is kinda sad though."
It is a non sequitur. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. And you said it proves something. It doesn't.
You both overreacted to Guido and made yourselves hypocrites by, according to your own arguments, "protesting against" Guido's "freedom of speech." Say he's wrong or whatever, but to say that he's protesting against free speech is absolutely unsupportable by any kind of evidence. And the "ruining" of the "fun" of a badly written (cliched and cheesy) post is also nothing to get worked up over. So this is my specific complaint boiled down:
Rob: you know absolutely nothing about Constitutional law.
Sheik: spare everyone the "all values are equal" bullshit.
Both: neither of you could form a valid argument if your life dependend on it. I wouldn't trust a conclusion of yours even if it was that the earth was round or that the sky is blue. That you came up with it must mean there is something wrong with it. (That was an inductive argument based on the statements made by both of you in this thread.)
Also: I'm better than you.