Use of language

RedRevolution17 wrote:

well if you want to read the line again "Incompetent piece of shit' that means.... Incompetent... that is saying like you are not good enough... that is a personal attack...

That comment adresses the subject's capability to perform, not the subject, hence it is not a personal attack. It's validity relies on the arguements the "offender" may present to sustain his accusation.

RR17 wrote:

and piece of shit.... well i don't need to explain this one!

Exactly, because I did and thoroughly enough. Unfortunately you missed my point. Please read it again.

RR17 wrote:

and if you read his reply good, then you know what or who his subject was!

I did, but like I said already two times, there is a specific place for such trials to take place. I'm talking in a general sense and about the use of language, which is what is relevant to this discussion.

RR17 wrote:

shut the fuck up.... that is for me like saying 'you are not worthed to speak... now my dear friend, THAT is CENSORSHIP.

You didn't read what I said, did you? If you did, please demonstrate so, otherwise I kindly ask you not to reply until you have done so.

And no, it's not censorship since he's not altering, pragmaticly disallowing you to express your point, cutting our your words or hiding them. He's just expressing the view that, in his perspective, you don't count with the capability to express your point of view on a certain subject due to your lack of involvement with said subject and/or lack of knowledge and/or understanding in regards to it. What highlits, though, is the rather agressive manner in which this demand is presented.

RR17 wrote:

You can argue without offending people, that would be extending his capability... of using other words, or thinking before he is writting something, i don't what the capability of "shut the fuck" is?

Actually, not. You're limiting his capability to enrich his statements and arguements with emotion, the expression of which we all should be free to perform. We have right to have emotions and to express them and in doing so we enrich our speech.

The important thing is that the arguements of the one who makes the statement are valid.

For example "Shut the fuck up asshole! With your interventions in this debate you cause nothing but distraction and confusion for your lack of knowledge on the subject and the subsequent lack of understanding from your part on the phenomena in question make your statements rather misguiding. Forgive my tone, but you've actually enraged me given the implications of your intervention" The locutor is in all his right to express his anger and is fundamenting it. Why should his anger be censored? Why should the expression of his emotions be supressed?

RR17 wrote:

And no that is not censorship, that is just good behaving towords another person.
Censorship is "shut the fuck up" that is censorship.

I'm sorry once again but it's not up to you to determine the definition of "censorship". This word has an objective meaning determined by linguistic consensus, it is not a subjective truth relative to each one of us:

Censorship: is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor. The rationale for censorship is different for various types of information censored.

Merriam-webster dictionary:
1 a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring b: the actions or practices of censors ; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

Censoring: : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news> ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

Censorship, from "censor" a roman functionary that judged material to be publicized and, in case of finding it objectionable or inappropiate forbid the appearance of said material.

I hope that clears out to you what "censorship" means.

"Shut the fuck up", which I have already analysed in my previous post, is the demand that you remain silent. It in no way forbids you to say or express what you want to say, it doesn't alter it, cut it off or hide it from public. It's a mere request for you to not excert an opinion, but not censorship. At least not as per the definition of censorship.

RR17 wrote:

the better discussion is without offensive language, because realy... what makes the difference of just writting 'shut the fuck up' or saying i don't agree with you.

Again, "better" is relative. We all have a different concept of "better", you should try not to impose on others what you think is better.

For me and for many, better dicussion is "without censorship", free discussion.

"Shut the fuck up" means "remain silent" and it's meaning can be extended by context to mean "reserve to yourself what you want ot have to say for it in no way contributes to the discussion and/or is rather invalid". In that case, it should be backed up by arguements to be valid itself.

"I don't agree with you" means "Our points of view differ" but you may even concede validity to the interlocutor's claim.

As you can see, they're different things with different uses.

RR17 wrote:

It's yes... the expression my friend! And offcourse for the 2nd choise you have think maybe 2 seconds to answer, and the first one is the gut feeling...

The best for me is to mix your gut feeling with coherent speech and valid arguementation for, objectively, it's the most complete form of expression and for me the more complete expression is, the best.

RR17 wrote:

but please, let us maintain the level up in this forum and think before you write something.

That's what I say "mantain the level up" in this forum as a free forum, free of censorship.

Wether something is thought up befor being written or not is visible not on wether it was said with rage or not but on wether it can be defended with arguements and be backed up in truth or not. Although technically it's impossible to struc ture any sentence without thinking it first. You mean "thinking it well"? Then some of the most offensive assertions tend to be extremely well thought and in many cases they're extremely valid.

RR17 wrote:

thank you.

To you too, of course if you attentively read what I wrote.

I'm 100 % against this motion. Don't you ever allow censorship.
And if you're offended because someone used a bad word, then, sorry to say, you are a pretty bad sissy.

you havent been here for a month and you are trying to change the forum?

beatnikzach wrote:

you havent been here for a month and you are trying to change the forum?

I don't think there's a real time limit for 'changing' polls/threads.

CoolKidX wrote:

I don't think there's a real time limit for 'changing' polls/threads.

There is, as far as I know a minimum amount of posts requirement.

Now, the problem with RR17 being active in the forum for less than one month is that h is involvement with the forum is rather shallow. He hasn't seen its development in say the last year when most of the active members have been around for at least 8 to 12 months.

In order for RR17's attempt to change the forum or to propose modifications it would be reasonable for him to get more involved and to study its history.


By the way RR17, I'm still waiting for your replies here. My last post has a bunch of questions I'd like you to answer and a bunch of arguements I'd like you to adress.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

CoolKidX wrote:

I don't think there's a real time limit for 'changing' polls/threads.

There is, as far as I know a minimum amount of posts requirement.

Now, the problem with RR17 being active in the forum for less than one month is that h is involvement with the forum is rather shallow. He hasn't seen its development in say the last year when most of the active members have been around for at least 8 to 12 months.

In order for RR17's attempt to change the forum or to propose modifications it would be reasonable for him to get more involved and to study its history.


By the way RR17, I'm still waiting for your replies here. My last post has a bunch of questions I'd like you to answer and a bunch of arguements I'd like you to adress.

i don't need to reply anymore... insult language is forbidden... so i prove my point
thank you.

RedRevolution17 wrote:

i don't need to reply anymore... insult language is forbidden... so i prove my point
thank you.

Ehm, no. Not at all. You missed all my points, you didn't answer my questions, your points got completely obliterated therefore our proposal is, as of now, invalid.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

RedRevolution17 wrote:

i don't need to reply anymore... insult language is forbidden... so i prove my point
thank you.

Ehm, no. Not at all. You missed all my points, you didn't answer my questions, your points got completely obliterated therefore our proposal is, as of now, invalid.

you think? what did kenzu said to you yesterday in the chat, therefore... it's not invalid.

also, he was here before, he is Communist Tom

Liche wrote:

also, he was here before, he is Communist Tom

Yea he lost his password so he made a new one.. after a while.

He was here before, then left for more than a year and came back meaning he's not familirized to the situation in the forum which is Zach's point.

RedRevolution17 wrote:

you think? what did kenzu said to you yesterday in the chat, therefore... it's not invalid.

It is objectively invalid for it hasn't been sustained with arguements and it's democratically invalid because the people do not support it.

It is absolutely not defensible.

Not only will I not enforce such an antidemocratic, repressive and baseless policy, I will resist it, for the 2nd time, and this time if anyone is banned on these grounds without a trial in which a ban sentence is well defended by arguements I'll leave this forum with my freedommongling comrades.

i know its a little late but still i vote not to block it.

free speach people. we(not me) can handle it