R.I.P. To me these letters changed meaning when I accepted atheism. They don't mean to wish the dead to accept their demise but for the family of the demised to accept. The R.I.P. is not meant to keep the dead asleep lol!
Great points. 6 stars! If only everyone would employ a little more reasoning skill as you have demonstrated in this vid... sigh. We live in a most messed up world.
I'm assuming the reference to raping a six year old was to Alisha, who was supposed to be 9 years old. You said six and for some reason I was reminded of Hendrix. Go figure
Ah yes. Ayesha - she was six when they got married, and nine when the union was consumed ...
Then again, there are some Muslims who have been looking at the Hadiths and who think that she may have been a good bit older. I'm glad they're making that effort as at least it shows that they are uncomfortable with the original age.
Ayesha, Tobisha, Tunisa, what ever. Truth be told I think it's one of those irrelevant 'angel's on the head of a pin' arguments. All due respect to Naomi and others that spend time on it, but I don't see the usefulness of it. In fact I think it's counter productive. I would rather spend time promoting the benefits of secular society than arguing with Theists on their 'home turf', so to speak. Might as well argue about L'Morte d'Arthur or Beowulf
Another outstanding video. Freedom of speech, even unpopular or dangerous speech, must never be stifled. I perfectly understand the difference between inciting bad actions, and having the public opinion those bad actions should happen. I find it disturbing, and quite frankly deplorable, that people do not understand the distinction. That there may be charismatic people out there, whose very opinion may incite bad actions, is simply no reason to deny that person the right to voice those opinions.
"we don't want to have to put in the effort to show through dialogue and argument why those people's opinions are so disgusting, so we'll just ban them". And of course it ALWAYS starts with opinions that all decent people would agree on as being really despicable. And of course if it DOES get implemented, it never ends there ...
Of course, this is not the position of most governments on this planet, even here in America. With ever increasing "hate speech" laws being put into effect all over. Laws against speaking out against certain groups or people, must never be allowed to be put in place. Those things, if offensive, must be countered by rational discourse. To stifle bad speech through censorship, just fosters the bad idea that that speech could possibly bring to light.
exactly. If you forbid people to say certain things, all you'll achieve is that they'll make sure you're not listening while they continue saying them.
It appears Pino, that we are on the same page. Looks like you can type faster than me, as you got the continuation of my thought in, just before I did.
Hey, it's cool. I'm a hunt n peck artist myself, never did learn the particularly useful skill of touch typing, much to my chagrin. I usually use a speech converter program like Dragon, when I have a paper to type, or report to file. It's not really worth getting out the mike and setting things up for a 500 word max comment. Hell, I don't even know if it's compatible with YouTube.
I have, but I have never denied them their own platform. My channel is MY mouthpiece, but outside that it's a big world where people can do and say what they please.
Seven minutes of you attacking something I never said, or defended. Great job destroying that straw man. You ripped him to shreds. Now if you don't mind, make a video answering my question.
Yes. And they should expect to be met with a relentless storm of opposition. But they should still have the right to say it. As for "broadcasting" it, I wish them good luck finding a broadcaster, but I'm not going to help them.
lets say it broadcasted from the top of a box on a street corner, or on youtube, and somebody of the group gets murdered as a result of the broadcast.
If all the broadcaster did was state an opinion then, no, the broadcaster should not be shut up. Is the broadcaster providing information that will make it possible to FIND joe, then that is a different matter.
i'm talking about the broadcaster on his box on the corner or on yt.
lets say its all black people that is the focus of the opinion, and everyday another black person is mudered because somebody else agreed with the broadcaster.
the murderers all atest to the fact that the broadcaster influenced them.
well on the opposite corner there is another broadcaster who denounces the murderous opinion and yet some passersby still side with the murderous opinion and grabs every black passerby and murders them.
or, they sign a confession stating that they murdered because they agreed with the opinion of the first broadcaster and thus took action.
under both these conditions, should the broadcaster still have the right?
the broadcaster says, "I think all black people should be murdered because they are not white, thats my opinion!"
and so everyday some passerby yells, "I agree!" and kills a black person because they are not white. they are arrested and state they did so because the broadcaster made them realize that since blacks aren't white they should be killed.
No. You need to explain how, exacly, the broadcaster stating his OPINION directly CAUSES the passerby to do what he does.
It's a very important point. You really need to be able to communicate the precise mechanism behind this causal link before your claim that your statement has any validity can be taken seriously.
No. An incitement to violence would involve providing information to make the violence possible. For example: "Let's go to Harlem now and lynch ourselves a few niggers", upon which he steps off his soap box and starts marching towards Harlem. At that point he has crossed the line into illegality and he can be stopped.
"Let's get together in the Town Square tomorrow and have ourselves a riot". Yup. Now it's incitement to violence.
"You want to rape a juicy 6-year-old? This one [enter details here] is not very well looked after and easy prey. Have fun!". Yup. Crossed the line again. Arrest the fucker.
yes, if the scenerio i gave was actually taking place on a daily basis and you sat there argueing the broadcasters right, there's something wrong you.
there's no debating this as people are killed daily.
Show me one "broadcaster" like that who doesn't get involved him- or herself. It's only a matter of time before they fuck up legally and they can be locked up for PROPER reasons.
you are unable or unwilling to stick with the scenerio.
" If you want to kill black people, the broadcaster's statements do not give you any information you do not already have. " - as the scenerio presents, the opinion that blacks should be killed because they are not white was realized by passersby.
you are an idiot, an appeaser, twiddling your thumbs, willfully straying away from the scenerio so as to appear victorious.
Surely you're not suggestion that we should now ban persuasion, are you? After all, very good arguments persuaded me that racism is despicable and it should be opposed. I would imagine that it is not "persuasion" that you are arguing against. Or at least I would hope so.
In any case, if it IS "persuasion" that you are arguing against then you better go get a good lawyer as you've been guilty of attempts to "persuade" for a large amount of comments now. Oh. Wait. Maybe not. After all you're just making assertions without providing a basis for them.
if you willfully wish to ignore the real life consequences of the power persuasion when aimed at criminal deeds, ignore the scenerio in hopes of protecting the right of speech over the right to security, and require some further explanation, then there's no use talking to you.
the scenerio stands and you will protect the right of the broadcaster and i will protect the right of the victims.
this type of scenerio has happened and people have died.
What victims? Nothing the broadcaster has done has created any "victims". The passerby who acts on what the broadcaster says, yes, THEY have created victims, and I have clearly stated that they should be persecuted with the full force of the law. What part of that did you not understand.
Now, your argument continues to hinge on your assertion that there is a causal link between what the broadcaster says and what the passerby does, and until you manage to explain this, I will reject it.
enough of a causal link was stated in the scenerio for me. if you require more thats fine.
i'll ERR on the side of caution and pull the box from the broadcaster.
look into the rwandan genocide, see the role of broadcasters and understand that there's a grey area here. you are more lenient and i'll err on the side of caution.
I rest my case. You really haven't a clue. You don't understand the difference between stating an opinion and actual incitement to hatred, IDENTIFYING victims.
specific locations and names were not required for many as hutu knew who were tutsi. they lived together.
aside and BEFORE deaths occured, before the planning and directing, encouragement and persuasion was daily broadcast. the authorities pushed it along.
you fail to see that "black" is the address, the identifying.
You are still dancing around the whole fact that you are failing to present a valid causal link. The elephant is still there.
And your point is mistaken. The government were ORGANISING the thing. First of all, how would you propose you shut up a government? A minute ago you were talking about a lone moron on a soap box. Secondly, it is the ORGANISING that is the real "cause" in this case.
Fail and fail again. You just don't know when to stop, do you?
actually i meant to say that BEFORE the actual directing , deaths did occur due to encouragement and persuasion alone, not from gov't but from local radio personalities and citizen broadcasters.
the causal link in my scenerio is clear to me. confessions and testimony of the arrested is enough for me.
you fail to see that "black" is the address, the identifying, in my scenerio.
Why should I? You're immensely amusing, and you're providing a huge amount of response to this video. If you keep this up it'll end up being featured.
Now, putting the fact that the government was actually organising it all, It's stil there, my friend:
How, exactly, by what mechanism, did the broadcast CAUSE the genocide? Please explain? You still haven't done so. You keep bringing more and more extraneous bullshit into this, but you never EVER explain a thing.
> you fail to see that "black" is the address, the identifying.
Once again, because I shall never tire of this.
broadcaster: "kill blacks"
leads to
passerby: "ok then"
Explain how. In detail.
And don't think for a moment that I'm asking because I don't know. I'm asking because I do, and so do you, but admitting it would invalidate your whole argument, isn't that right?
You can stand up proud like a stick in the mud. But failing to provide a proper argument for your assertion your statements have no persuasive power. Good on ya!
And no matter what twist you'll try to introduce next, I will continue to come back to the basic fact that you are asserting that there is a causal link for which you are providing no evidence whatsoever. I will not allow the discussion to stray from that huge elephant in the corner that you are so busy ignoring.
Yeah revel's, my favourite chocolate, but chocolate, raisin, coffee or nut? that is the question! but to be honest it is fun to watch such an epic fail, all you had to do was draw a deductive statement from your premise, and you would have found your conclusion! why didn't you? sophistry? realisation of the in-validity of your argument? not very good at thinking on your feet are you!
"you are an idiot, an appeaser, twiddling your thumbs, willfully straying away from the scenerio so as to appear victorious.
its pathetic. "
No, you're pathetic.
You are an authoritarian pig who thinks peoples rights should be taken away.
Also you're scenario is stupid, even if someones words insight volence, if anybody listening agrees with it, you can be pretty sure he held that opinion beforehand.
Even if it may result in the loss of lives, we have no right to take away others rights.
ALOVELYTIME, Personal responsability-the ability to choose actions and responses, ever heard of it? or do you need others to be responsible for your actions? You also do not seem to understand the way premises and conclusions work, perhaps logic101 might help ;-) have a nice day ;-)
if opinions to murder and rape of a person or group are made publically and murder and rape happens, then i'll err on the side of caution and deny that opinion a public airing.
if opinions to civil disobedience or revolt are made public, i'll support the right to air that opinion publically, even if people die as a result of revolt or civil disobedience.
but if the opinion to murder and rape you and all atheists were broadcast and you and atheists started getting murdered and raped, i'll do what i can to stop that opinion from being broadcast.
Voicesinthehead posted a video called Patience - with the first image saying "Patience I am going to kill you in your sleep" re the Inmendham video they are going to upload.
FFS haven't they done enough already? Enough? What am I saying? ENOUGH? Haven't they crossed the line so far already that they really shouldn't be going any further?
It makes me quite sad that these bullies would target an isolated agrophobic guy and get kicks out violating his privacy and expose him to even more harassement. Inmendham is no angel and does have very limited patience and a hot head, but he is well-meaning and spends much of his time on the topic of sentient suffering and ideas for a better world. I hope they wake up.
Pino, the way those two are harassing Inmendham, stalking him, taking photos and video of where he lives and posting it with mean comments on the internet is apalling - I don't think they have any ethics whatsoever. Peoples privacy should be respected, they are creeps.
If we value free speech we should never try to silence people however much we disagree. But sometimes, people forget when they hear something they find to be truly repugnant... Freedom of speech is there to protect those who hold unpopular views, that's what it's all about.
Thanks. Sometimes somebody says something that is so revolting that I just don't know what to say. In that case I walk away. I won't silence them but I'm not obliged to listen either.
I think fred phelps is running away from his own fantasies and he thinks he can avoid them by atempting to attack the object of them. your right slipper which is obvously on the left in this video from the view of the viewer , looks pissed. nice video.
no i mean your left slipper on your right from your point of view,i was just describing it as though your legs were uncrossed from the point of view of the viewer. but its all good anyway. i mean pissed uk as in drunk. your actual right slipper on the left looks fairly nonplussed. unsurprising realy for a slipper. it still looks brighter than fred phelps however. LOL
Those two have a vindictive spiteful little hate club going between them, looking no further than each other for justification on their despicable actions.
There is something decidedly unhealthy about the pair of them.
Man you can say THAT again. The relationship will fail, is a failure, for all that it is based upon but then again I suppose they have shown they are perfect for one another. Let them stew in their own juices. A fetid ragù.
Well said. I was appalled that anyone could find this behaviour acceptable and continue to justify it. They have gone so far beyond the line I'm surprised their accounts remain standing.
I have to say the slippers were somewhat distracting.
I hope the slippers of righteousness have the ability to enable people to see that false assumptions or accusations based upon the desire to demonise or scapegoat someone is not righteous. It beggars belief how the truth has been twisted to suit, and thus become lies. I find it especially bizarre coming from atheists who theoretically wish to avoid false beliefs. I'm not including you in that, just rather disappointed. The school yard is more mature than some of whats going on presently.
What I cannot get my head around is how someone who has been at the receiving end of a false DMCA can consider supporting somebody else doing the same thing. I know love blinds you to the other's flaws but this is taking the biscuit.
It's retarded behaviour, VFX was slated for his false DMCA, now people who criticised Shawn are jumping to defend what I can only honestly call hypocrisy, 'we don't like his words, make him stop mummy', if they can't see how this de-merits them then let them continue to make fools of themselves. Who knows, maybe the clarity offered by the funeral analogy might re-spark some rational behaviour, but I aint holding my breath!
agreed, maybe it's a case of punch drunk love ;p and as you mentioned above, the whole taking pictures of certain people's houses just adds to the BS.
What's your opinion of videotaping somebody's home without their consent and then posting it on the internet? I don't think that Johnny and Naomi have been hinking too hard lately.
They're my wife's, she's had them like, forever!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
R.I.P. To me these letters changed meaning when I accepted atheism. They don't mean to wish the dead to accept their demise but for the family of the demised to accept. The R.I.P. is not meant to keep the dead asleep lol!
deicidalistic 2 years ago
Interesting. Not entirely sure what it has to do with this particular video though :-)
rozeboosje 2 years ago
OMG Did you say something, cause I was distracted by the awesomeness of your slippers ;P.
FrodenOrange 2 years ago
Ha!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Freedom of expression is the freedom to convey your ideas.
Limiting it is limiting the public forum and thus the marketplace of ideas.
qanazir 2 years ago
Yup
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Johnny is using the same excuses Christians use when it comes to defending slavery in the bible.
He pretends to be against it but ignores it when it stares him in the face. He's thinking with the wrong head.
justintempler 2 years ago
:-(
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Very well said.
TheNakedAtheist 2 years ago
Cheers
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Great points. 6 stars! If only everyone would employ a little more reasoning skill as you have demonstrated in this vid... sigh. We live in a most messed up world.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Thank you!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
If 6 was 9
cehbeach 2 years ago
[blank look]
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I'm assuming the reference to raping a six year old was to Alisha, who was supposed to be 9 years old. You said six and for some reason I was reminded of Hendrix. Go figure
cehbeach 2 years ago
Ah yes. Ayesha - she was six when they got married, and nine when the union was consumed ...
Then again, there are some Muslims who have been looking at the Hadiths and who think that she may have been a good bit older. I'm glad they're making that effort as at least it shows that they are uncomfortable with the original age.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Ayesha, Tobisha, Tunisa, what ever. Truth be told I think it's one of those irrelevant 'angel's on the head of a pin' arguments. All due respect to Naomi and others that spend time on it, but I don't see the usefulness of it. In fact I think it's counter productive. I would rather spend time promoting the benefits of secular society than arguing with Theists on their 'home turf', so to speak. Might as well argue about L'Morte d'Arthur or Beowulf
cehbeach 2 years ago
Exactly
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Another outstanding video. Freedom of speech, even unpopular or dangerous speech, must never be stifled. I perfectly understand the difference between inciting bad actions, and having the public opinion those bad actions should happen. I find it disturbing, and quite frankly deplorable, that people do not understand the distinction. That there may be charismatic people out there, whose very opinion may incite bad actions, is simply no reason to deny that person the right to voice those opinions.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
It would be a lazyman's response, really:
"we don't want to have to put in the effort to show through dialogue and argument why those people's opinions are so disgusting, so we'll just ban them". And of course it ALWAYS starts with opinions that all decent people would agree on as being really despicable. And of course if it DOES get implemented, it never ends there ...
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Of course, this is not the position of most governments on this planet, even here in America. With ever increasing "hate speech" laws being put into effect all over. Laws against speaking out against certain groups or people, must never be allowed to be put in place. Those things, if offensive, must be countered by rational discourse. To stifle bad speech through censorship, just fosters the bad idea that that speech could possibly bring to light.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
exactly. If you forbid people to say certain things, all you'll achieve is that they'll make sure you're not listening while they continue saying them.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
It appears Pino, that we are on the same page. Looks like you can type faster than me, as you got the continuation of my thought in, just before I did.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
:-)
Sorry.
Yeah; I'm a touch typist.
Oh flip. I just realised it's almost 30 years since I learnt that skill. O_o
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Hey, it's cool. I'm a hunt n peck artist myself, never did learn the particularly useful skill of touch typing, much to my chagrin. I usually use a speech converter program like Dragon, when I have a paper to type, or report to file. It's not really worth getting out the mike and setting things up for a 500 word max comment. Hell, I don't even know if it's compatible with YouTube.
xxxchaindrive 2 years ago
buzz buzz.... awesome video pino x
princessannikki 2 years ago
Thanks!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
freedom of speach is for the opposing side not yours. I have never deleted comments or blocked users.
rednecktrucker1969 2 years ago
I have, but I have never denied them their own platform. My channel is MY mouthpiece, but outside that it's a big world where people can do and say what they please.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
How can you have such a serious monologue in slippers like those?
lazyperfectionist1 2 years ago
They're Slippers of Justice. Be not fooled by their appearance.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Great points. I cringed when they said they were filing a DMCA..
Brianswers 2 years ago
Yup. Me, too.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Seven minutes of you attacking something I never said, or defended. Great job destroying that straw man. You ripped him to shreds. Now if you don't mind, make a video answering my question.
VoicesintheHead 2 years ago
Would you like to explain what conflicting right, exactly, would have been compromised by that moron stating his opinion?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Voices, what do you think of posting videos of other users residence without their explicit consent?
BMS1974 2 years ago
apparently this account (voicesinthehead) as been suspended...
I tried to view the channel..
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
Yes. Terms of Use violations. He uploaded videos showing a private residence and identified who lived there.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
good day Sir,
should a person have the right to daily broadcast their opinion to a community that it would be just to murder somebody or group of people?
alovelytime 2 years ago
Yes. And they should expect to be met with a relentless storm of opposition. But they should still have the right to say it. As for "broadcasting" it, I wish them good luck finding a broadcaster, but I'm not going to help them.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
lets say it broadcasted from the top of a box on a street corner, or on youtube, and somebody of the group gets murdered as a result of the broadcast.
does the right still stand?
alovelytime 2 years ago
Kindly explain how the broadcast could result in a murder.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
a passerby agrees with the opinion and carries out the murder.
alovelytime 2 years ago
What murder?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
the broadcaster feels that joe shmoe should be murdered. a passerby agrees with the opinion and kills joe.
alovelytime 2 years ago
The murderer should be prosecuted.
If all the broadcaster did was state an opinion then, no, the broadcaster should not be shut up. Is the broadcaster providing information that will make it possible to FIND joe, then that is a different matter.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
So you think it would be OK to shut somebody up because of what somebody else MIGHT do if they listened?
To quote a moron I met recently:
"that's crazy"
rozeboosje 2 years ago
follow with the hypothetical if you will.
not might do, but does.
alovelytime 2 years ago
I did, you idiot. The passerby should be locked up. He's a murderer.
Every day hundreds of Americans say things like "I hate that fucker Obama. I wish somebody would just go and do a Kennedy on him."
Are you suggesting that all those people should be shut up?
Are you really that retarded?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Because you never know who might listen, eh?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
i'm talking about the broadcaster on his box on the corner or on yt.
lets say its all black people that is the focus of the opinion, and everyday another black person is mudered because somebody else agreed with the broadcaster.
the murderers all atest to the fact that the broadcaster influenced them.
does the right remain for this broadcaster?
alovelytime 2 years ago
Yes. And why the fuck is nobody speaking out against him?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
And please explain exactly how the causal link between the broadcaster making his statements and the black people being murder would work.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
murderED
rozeboosje 2 years ago
well on the opposite corner there is another broadcaster who denounces the murderous opinion and yet some passersby still side with the murderous opinion and grabs every black passerby and murders them.
or, they sign a confession stating that they murdered because they agreed with the opinion of the first broadcaster and thus took action.
under both these conditions, should the broadcaster still have the right?
alovelytime 2 years ago
You forgot to explain the causal link between what the broadcaster says and what the passerby does. It's pretty crucial.
Yes, he should have the right. And every passerby who is triggered into doing anything illegal as a result of his words should be prosecuted.
You really aren't getting it, are you?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
the broadcaster says, "I think all black people should be murdered because they are not white, thats my opinion!"
and so everyday some passerby yells, "I agree!" and kills a black person because they are not white. they are arrested and state they did so because the broadcaster made them realize that since blacks aren't white they should be killed.
is that not link enough?
alovelytime 2 years ago
No. You need to explain how, exacly, the broadcaster stating his OPINION directly CAUSES the passerby to do what he does.
It's a very important point. You really need to be able to communicate the precise mechanism behind this causal link before your claim that your statement has any validity can be taken seriously.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
well if thats not link enough for you, for the sake of arguemnt, can you think of one?
or do you feel there never will be one?
alovelytime 2 years ago
WTF?
Dude (or Ma'am), this is YOUR argument. YOU come up with a link. If you CAN'T, maybe it's time you started re-evaluating your whole argument?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
you are a complete fucking idiot.
these are clear examples of incitement to violence.
alovelytime 2 years ago
No. An incitement to violence would involve providing information to make the violence possible. For example: "Let's go to Harlem now and lynch ourselves a few niggers", upon which he steps off his soap box and starts marching towards Harlem. At that point he has crossed the line into illegality and he can be stopped.
Now. Care to try again?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
if you are of the opinion that the scenerios i gave you still gives the broadcaster the right, then there's something wrong with you.
alovelytime 2 years ago
No. That's not an argument either. Try again.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Here's another example:
"There's this guy whose guts I hate. You all know what his name is. This is a picture of his house. You know where he lives."
Now it's incitement to violence. I think somebody might find themselves in hot water over this.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
"Let's get together in the Town Square tomorrow and have ourselves a riot". Yup. Now it's incitement to violence.
"You want to rape a juicy 6-year-old? This one [enter details here] is not very well looked after and easy prey. Have fun!". Yup. Crossed the line again. Arrest the fucker.
But stating an opinion? No.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
yes, if the scenerio i gave was actually taking place on a daily basis and you sat there argueing the broadcasters right, there's something wrong you.
there's no debating this as people are killed daily.
alovelytime 2 years ago
Then why are you here, spouting off your bullshit?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Repeating yourself is no argument either
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Show me one "broadcaster" like that who doesn't get involved him- or herself. It's only a matter of time before they fuck up legally and they can be locked up for PROPER reasons.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
the scenerio i gave is cause enough for me.
black skin is the address.
alovelytime 2 years ago
Stating there is a cause is not the same as explaining what the cause is.
If you want to kill black people, the broadcaster's statements do not give you any information you do not already have.
If you hate Gary, knowing what his house looks like may be just the bit of information you need to make it possible.
Fail again. Try again.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
you are unable or unwilling to stick with the scenerio.
" If you want to kill black people, the broadcaster's statements do not give you any information you do not already have. " - as the scenerio presents, the opinion that blacks should be killed because they are not white was realized by passersby.
you are an idiot, an appeaser, twiddling your thumbs, willfully straying away from the scenerio so as to appear victorious.
its pathetic.
alovelytime 2 years ago
No, you are painting a scenario, and then you want us all to pretend the flaws aren't there. Fuck that.
You really need to explain this to us:
A broadcaster says "black people should be killed". Now, what, exactly, CAUSES the passerby to go "hell yeah, let me go and do that right now".
Please communicate in detail how that causal link works, exactly.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Because if you really don't understand this, I hope you'll never pass a manic street preacher. Just imagine what such a person could make you do!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
well its good to know what you won't do, or will allow, as people die.
time comes when to err on the side of caution is best. but not for you.
alovelytime 2 years ago
Do you always "debate" by ignoring the other person's questions?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
And in case you forgot, like I asked you one comment ago, AGAIN:
how does the causal link work, the one that causes a passerby to act out the opinion expressed by the broadcaster. Please clarify. In detail.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
persuasion can work evil deeds.
if in this scenerio you require more, then you are an idiot.
alovelytime 2 years ago
That is a statement, not an explanation.
Try again.
I have all the time in the world.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Surely you're not suggestion that we should now ban persuasion, are you? After all, very good arguments persuaded me that racism is despicable and it should be opposed. I would imagine that it is not "persuasion" that you are arguing against. Or at least I would hope so.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
> suggestion suggestING
rozeboosje 2 years ago
In any case, if it IS "persuasion" that you are arguing against then you better go get a good lawyer as you've been guilty of attempts to "persuade" for a large amount of comments now. Oh. Wait. Maybe not. After all you're just making assertions without providing a basis for them.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
And you are failing miserably to "persuade" me of the validity of your remarks. Ok. You're safe.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
of course not.
if you willfully wish to ignore the real life consequences of the power persuasion when aimed at criminal deeds, ignore the scenerio in hopes of protecting the right of speech over the right to security, and require some further explanation, then there's no use talking to you.
the scenerio stands and you will protect the right of the broadcaster and i will protect the right of the victims.
this type of scenerio has happened and people have died.
alovelytime 2 years ago
what is power persuasion? Does it involve HYPNOTISM!?!?!
Wooooooooooo
rozeboosje 2 years ago
lol
you're a prick.
alovelytime 2 years ago
That, again, is not an argument.
Try again.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
And your assertion that I wouldn't protect the right of victims is a bare faced lie, as is obvious from the previous comments I have made.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
according to your answers given the scenerio, you will protect the rights of the persuasive broadcaster above the victims.
you are a liar as well.
alovelytime 2 years ago
What victims? Nothing the broadcaster has done has created any "victims". The passerby who acts on what the broadcaster says, yes, THEY have created victims, and I have clearly stated that they should be persecuted with the full force of the law. What part of that did you not understand.
Now, your argument continues to hinge on your assertion that there is a causal link between what the broadcaster says and what the passerby does, and until you manage to explain this, I will reject it.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
i understand that fully.
enough of a causal link was stated in the scenerio for me. if you require more thats fine.
i'll ERR on the side of caution and pull the box from the broadcaster.
look into the rwandan genocide, see the role of broadcasters and understand that there's a grey area here. you are more lenient and i'll err on the side of caution.
thats all there is to it.
alovelytime 2 years ago
Maybe YOU should look into the rwandan genocide, and investigate precisely what was in those broadcasts.
"UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions, Bacre
Waly Ndiaye, writes that the role of administrative authorities in the violence
consists chiefly in encouraging, planning and directing the operation, and in some
cases actually participating in it.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
"targets being identified in speeches by representatives of
the authorities, broadcasts on Rwandan radio and leaflets"
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I've posted a link for you in the description.
I rest my case. You really haven't a clue. You don't understand the difference between stating an opinion and actual incitement to hatred, IDENTIFYING victims.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
tutsi = "black" in my scenario.
specific locations and names were not required for many as hutu knew who were tutsi. they lived together.
aside and BEFORE deaths occured, before the planning and directing, encouragement and persuasion was daily broadcast. the authorities pushed it along.
you fail to see that "black" is the address, the identifying.
alovelytime 2 years ago
You are still dancing around the whole fact that you are failing to present a valid causal link. The elephant is still there.
And your point is mistaken. The government were ORGANISING the thing. First of all, how would you propose you shut up a government? A minute ago you were talking about a lone moron on a soap box. Secondly, it is the ORGANISING that is the real "cause" in this case.
Fail and fail again. You just don't know when to stop, do you?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
actually i meant to say that BEFORE the actual directing , deaths did occur due to encouragement and persuasion alone, not from gov't but from local radio personalities and citizen broadcasters.
the causal link in my scenerio is clear to me. confessions and testimony of the arrested is enough for me.
you fail to see that "black" is the address, the identifying, in my scenerio.
block me if you wish.
alovelytime 2 years ago
> block me if you wish
Why should I? You're immensely amusing, and you're providing a huge amount of response to this video. If you keep this up it'll end up being featured.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Now, putting the fact that the government was actually organising it all, It's stil there, my friend:
How, exactly, by what mechanism, did the broadcast CAUSE the genocide? Please explain? You still haven't done so. You keep bringing more and more extraneous bullshit into this, but you never EVER explain a thing.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
> you fail to see that "black" is the address, the identifying.
Once again, because I shall never tire of this.
broadcaster: "kill blacks"
leads to
passerby: "ok then"
Explain how. In detail.
And don't think for a moment that I'm asking because I don't know. I'm asking because I do, and so do you, but admitting it would invalidate your whole argument, isn't that right?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
the gov't acted on already existing tribal antaganisms. the deaths occured from the ground up.
that the passersby act on their own accord does not negate the persuasive opinion that caused them to realize that the deaths should take place.
again, i'll ERR on the side of caution and pull the box.
i stand by what i've said.
alovelytime 2 years ago
You can stand up proud like a stick in the mud. But failing to provide a proper argument for your assertion your statements have no persuasive power. Good on ya!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
And based on that I have no problem ERRing on the side of caution and leaving you on YOUR box to make a spectacle of yourself. Enjoy.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
well just as you have not provided a proper argument to persuade me to not pull the box from an opinion to murder.
spectacle of myself? don't flatter yourself.
alovelytime 2 years ago
No, sorry, wrong approach again. YOU are the one who barged in here demanding that people who state their opinion should be shut up.
I'm still waiting for your explanation.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
barged? should i have expected a personal invite to comment on your public video?
demand? not really. we're just talkin man.
way past bedtime for me. hope you don't mind if i return.
cheers !
alovelytime 2 years ago
knock yourself out
rozeboosje 2 years ago
btw, i agree that NaomiKnights filing of the DM CA was wrong. her choices seem to be for worst lately.
alovelytime 2 years ago
Glad to hear it. Maybe you'll realise that we're not worlds apart on this issue either.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
And no matter what twist you'll try to introduce next, I will continue to come back to the basic fact that you are asserting that there is a causal link for which you are providing no evidence whatsoever. I will not allow the discussion to stray from that huge elephant in the corner that you are so busy ignoring.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
"according to your answers given the scenerio, you will protect the rights of the persuasive broadcaster above the victims."
*facepalm*
First of all rights are called rights for a reason y'know.
Secondly you pull this scenario out of your ass.
Having something violent broadcasted doesn't suddenly make people go on killing sprees.
If it did, horror films would be banned.
"you are a liar as well."
And you're full of shit.
silentbob36 2 years ago
You have named your own shortcomings, the fallacy of the appeal to consequences, epic fail ;-(
BMS1974 2 years ago
revel in it
alovelytime 2 years ago
Yeah revel's, my favourite chocolate, but chocolate, raisin, coffee or nut? that is the question! but to be honest it is fun to watch such an epic fail, all you had to do was draw a deductive statement from your premise, and you would have found your conclusion! why didn't you? sophistry? realisation of the in-validity of your argument? not very good at thinking on your feet are you!
BMS1974 2 years ago
Thanks for the sub. I usually post that one a subber's channel.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
"you are an idiot, an appeaser, twiddling your thumbs, willfully straying away from the scenerio so as to appear victorious.
its pathetic. "
No, you're pathetic.
You are an authoritarian pig who thinks peoples rights should be taken away.
Also you're scenario is stupid, even if someones words insight volence, if anybody listening agrees with it, you can be pretty sure he held that opinion beforehand.
Even if it may result in the loss of lives, we have no right to take away others rights.
silentbob36 2 years ago
ALOVELYTIME, Personal responsability-the ability to choose actions and responses, ever heard of it? or do you need others to be responsible for your actions? You also do not seem to understand the way premises and conclusions work, perhaps logic101 might help ;-) have a nice day ;-)
BMS1974 2 years ago
It seems as though you act that people are easily programed..
that all it takes is someoen to whisper in their ear, and if they agree with the opinion they will go on a killing spree..
I personally believe that in order to fight these irrational opinions, they need the right to speak out.
Otherwise they will be underground, and there will be no debate. Much more dangerious then letting them be out in the open.
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
for example: I would rather have muslims FREELY expressing their opinion, that all infidels must die.
Then have them carefully expressing their opinions to those that already share it.
This gives me a better oppurtunity to persway them that they are incorrect.
As if it goes unchecked, they will simply feed on each other and it will be worse then letting them FREELY state it..
Making speech illegal, does not eliminate it!
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
i agree with you.
i don't wish to make speech illegal.
but, its case by case to me.
if opinions to murder and rape of a person or group are made publically and murder and rape happens, then i'll err on the side of caution and deny that opinion a public airing.
if opinions to civil disobedience or revolt are made public, i'll support the right to air that opinion publically, even if people die as a result of revolt or civil disobedience.
alovelytime 2 years ago
Here is the thing..
If someone wanted me dead, I would rather them be able to be on a soap box expressing it freely!
I would be able to refute them, and I would be WARNED.
As if it were illegal it would be underground, where they only vocalize it to nutty people, who might actually do it!
And I would have no real chance to refute them, and no warning.
thefakeyeti 2 years ago
i agree with you.
but if the opinion to murder and rape you and all atheists were broadcast and you and atheists started getting murdered and raped, i'll do what i can to stop that opinion from being broadcast.
alovelytime 2 years ago
"When you're right, you're right. And, you, you're always right."- John Candy
VonSchnutze 2 years ago
cheers
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Voicesinthehead posted a video called Patience - with the first image saying "Patience I am going to kill you in your sleep" re the Inmendham video they are going to upload.
midas41 2 years ago
FFS haven't they done enough already? Enough? What am I saying? ENOUGH? Haven't they crossed the line so far already that they really shouldn't be going any further?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
It makes me quite sad that these bullies would target an isolated agrophobic guy and get kicks out violating his privacy and expose him to even more harassement. Inmendham is no angel and does have very limited patience and a hot head, but he is well-meaning and spends much of his time on the topic of sentient suffering and ideas for a better world. I hope they wake up.
midas41 2 years ago
Pino, the way those two are harassing Inmendham, stalking him, taking photos and video of where he lives and posting it with mean comments on the internet is apalling - I don't think they have any ethics whatsoever. Peoples privacy should be respected, they are creeps.
midas41 2 years ago
I get the impression that making Immendham feel threatened may not be the brightest idea, can they be certain how he is going to re-act?
BMS1974 2 years ago
Very well said.
If we value free speech we should never try to silence people however much we disagree. But sometimes, people forget when they hear something they find to be truly repugnant... Freedom of speech is there to protect those who hold unpopular views, that's what it's all about.
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
Thanks. Sometimes somebody says something that is so revolting that I just don't know what to say. In that case I walk away. I won't silence them but I'm not obliged to listen either.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Very true. The right to free speech is not the same as the right to be heard.
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago
Well said Rozeboosje
SuperFlyNB 2 years ago
Cheers
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Totally agree on every point Rozeboosje.
TawntheAtheist 2 years ago
Thanks
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Yea, most people don't really understand these things properly. Too many people allow emotional baggage to cloud their thinking.
TawntheAtheist 2 years ago
I think fred phelps is running away from his own fantasies and he thinks he can avoid them by atempting to attack the object of them. your right slipper which is obvously on the left in this video from the view of the viewer , looks pissed. nice video.
ooglebydoogleby 2 years ago
Actually it is my right slipper - I cross my legs ;-)
What do you mean by "pissed" though? UK "pissed" or US "pissed"?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
no i mean your left slipper on your right from your point of view,i was just describing it as though your legs were uncrossed from the point of view of the viewer. but its all good anyway. i mean pissed uk as in drunk. your actual right slipper on the left looks fairly nonplussed. unsurprising realy for a slipper. it still looks brighter than fred phelps however. LOL
ooglebydoogleby 2 years ago
I think a mud puddle would look brighter than fred phelps
rozeboosje 2 years ago
you have a point
ooglebydoogleby 2 years ago
a pointy point with nobs on
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Those two have a vindictive spiteful little hate club going between them, looking no further than each other for justification on their despicable actions.
There is something decidedly unhealthy about the pair of them.
mark9165 2 years ago
Yes, I think there is some real hatred going on there. They definitely set out to cause actual harm.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Man you can say THAT again. The relationship will fail, is a failure, for all that it is based upon but then again I suppose they have shown they are perfect for one another. Let them stew in their own juices. A fetid ragù.
nicanicabad 2 years ago
..Is kitty died ? ..
747dog 2 years ago
Nah. Just lazy.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Well said. I was appalled that anyone could find this behaviour acceptable and continue to justify it. They have gone so far beyond the line I'm surprised their accounts remain standing.
I have to say the slippers were somewhat distracting.
Loreleila 2 years ago
I think I will adopt them as my Slippers of Righteousness.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
I hope the slippers of righteousness have the ability to enable people to see that false assumptions or accusations based upon the desire to demonise or scapegoat someone is not righteous. It beggars belief how the truth has been twisted to suit, and thus become lies. I find it especially bizarre coming from atheists who theoretically wish to avoid false beliefs. I'm not including you in that, just rather disappointed. The school yard is more mature than some of whats going on presently.
Loreleila 2 years ago
Thanks Cathy. I hear ya.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
they seem to have totally gone off the rails recently.
thedynamitekidd 2 years ago
What I cannot get my head around is how someone who has been at the receiving end of a false DMCA can consider supporting somebody else doing the same thing. I know love blinds you to the other's flaws but this is taking the biscuit.
rozeboosje 2 years ago
It's not love, it's two pariahs feeding off of one another. Not mature.
nicanicabad 2 years ago
It's retarded behaviour, VFX was slated for his false DMCA, now people who criticised Shawn are jumping to defend what I can only honestly call hypocrisy, 'we don't like his words, make him stop mummy', if they can't see how this de-merits them then let them continue to make fools of themselves. Who knows, maybe the clarity offered by the funeral analogy might re-spark some rational behaviour, but I aint holding my breath!
BMS1974 2 years ago
agreed, maybe it's a case of punch drunk love ;p and as you mentioned above, the whole taking pictures of certain people's houses just adds to the BS.
thedynamitekidd 2 years ago
As always good stuff.
Indulge me though as to how you can make such a serious video with those house-shoes on?!?\
lol!
peanarchist 2 years ago
"float like a butterfly, sting like a bee"
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Except, bees die after they sting O_o
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Agreed 100%.
Orygyn 2 years ago
Thanks!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Very well said, 5*
RowanFortuneWood 2 years ago
Cheers
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Very well said. The only thing wrong with this video is that I didn't make it.!
themaskedanalyst 2 years ago
What? You have Slippers Of Righteousness too?
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Why Righteousness? -Becasue you Beelieve?
nicanicabad 2 years ago
Beeware!
rozeboosje 2 years ago
Agreed!
What's your opinion of videotaping somebody's home without their consent and then posting it on the internet? I don't think that Johnny and Naomi have been hinking too hard lately.
CousinoMacul 2 years ago
Was it actually Gary's house in that video? If it was they crossed the line. By miles.
rozeboosje 2 years ago