Jump to content

In the News


Ramandu

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

AJ didn’t tell anyone to do anything 

What about the pressure he put on his listeners to save their second amendment rights?

I mean, they must have felt enormous pressure, right? 

 

Link to comment

2 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Lol. AJ the Fuhrer.

Please.

I'm not comparing them, I'm using the situations analogously in order to discover whether you would hold anyone responsible for their words. 

We've uncovered two scenarios that you've decided upon in the course of our exchange.  

1. An order. Even though an order, like a suggestion, can be ignored. 

2. An undecided, certainly immeasurable,  amount of 'pressure'. 

I mean, these aren't terrifically compelling excuses for being held accountable, are they? 

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
49 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Fuck me. Ordering people to do something is a far cry from expressing an opinion.

Isn’t it?

 

47 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

No. 

You can choose to ignore an order.  Orders are just words. If you choose to do something based on words then it's your fault, not the guy saying the words. 

 

 

16 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

I was reiterating your argument for clarity when I said that, not making the argument myself

OK :thumbup1:

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

I'm not comparing them, I'm using the situations analogously in order to discover whether you would hold anyone responsible for their words. 

We've uncovered two scenarios that you've decided upon in the course of our exchange.  

1. An order. Even though an order, like a suggestion, can be ignored. 

2. An undecided, certainly immeasurable,  amount of 'pressure'. 

I mean, these aren't terrifically compelling excuses for being held accountable, are they? 

 

 

Condescending much?

“We’ve” uncovered fuck all and I’ve decided on nothing. 

People ARE responsible for their words. They will be judged on what they say. My original point was it shouldn’t be a legal issue.
Society can have an opinion on what anyone says but shutting people down via legal means is a dangerous precedent. AJ can afford to pay any fines meted out, but the vast majority of us ordinary folk cannot.

Who decides what words can or cannot be said? These days if someone claims to be upset, that’s all it takes.

I call bullshit.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, CCB III said:

what the fuck are you talking about you retarded piece of garbage?

 

Kids were killed at a school, he continues to perpetrate this myth that it didn't happen, these kids didn't really die and the parents were actors. 
 

You don't think that spreading objectively false information is worthy of punishment?

 

They are quite right to be awarded damages, imagine grieving your child and this disgusting monkey pig man is telling his equally repulsive, moronic and impressionable following that your kid didn't die and you are an actor.

 

Both he and the MAGA maggots who threatened the parents should be punished. 
 

God, you're a fucking dipshit.  
 

 

He doesn’t continue that myth he admitted ages ago he was wrong 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

Condescending much?

“We’ve” uncovered fuck all and I’ve decided on nothing. 

People ARE responsible for their words. They will be judged on what they say. My original point was it shouldn’t be a legal issue.
Society can have an opinion on what anyone says but shutting people down via legal means is a dangerous precedent. AJ can afford to pay any fines meted out, but the vast majority of us ordinary folk cannot.

Who decides what words can or cannot be said? These days if someone claims to be upset, that’s all it takes.

I call bullshit.

But we did uncover them. You and me. Together. as the discussion evolved. 

You loled when asked if people should be held accountable for their words. 

"Of course not :laughing:"

but later you decided that people were responsible for their words because orders. 

"Ordering people to do something is a far cry from expressing an opinion.

and because pressure. 

"But the people obeying those orders must have felt massive pressure to obey"

But orders are just words, and pressure is surely arbitrary and contingent. So neither reason seems like a solid reason for holding the word-saying-guy accountable if you're not going to hold them accountable for suggestion or implication. 

Regardless, this is my question. 

"People ARE responsible for their words. They will be judged on what they say. My original point was it shouldn’t be a legal issue."

Then if there are no legal ramifications how are they being judged, and how are they being held responsible? 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, tutankamun said:
  • Judged by society as I said. No need for the law.
  • Ill give you credit Kelt, you are relentless:laughing:.
  • I assume it’s earlier where you are…
  • Judged by society is kinda meaningless, though, surely? I mean... what are the actual repercussions of non-legal judgement? It's not even a slap on the wrist. Is it like blocking on Facebook or Twitter? 
  • I'm just intrigued at the idea that anyone would want the guy at the top to suffer no consequences for the actions of his underlings. I mean, that's how the real world usually works, but it's interesting to me to actually see someone express that as a desired outcome. 
  • Like 9pm now. Just has some Injin food and beers. 

Speaking of condescending, though, have you really found my stance so hilarious that you laughed at the majority of my responses? 

 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Ke1t said:
  • Judged by society is kinda meaningless, though, surely? I mean... what are the actual repercussions of non-legal judgement? It's not even a slap on the wrist. Is it like blocking on Facebook or Twitter? 
  • I'm just intrigued at the idea that anyone would want the guy at the top to suffer no consequences for the actions of his underlings. I mean, that's how the real world usually works, but it's interesting to me to actually see someone express that as a desired outcome. 
  • Like 9pm now. Just has some Injin food and beers. 

Speaking of condescending, though, have you really found my stance so hilarious that you laughed at the majority of my responses? 

 

Yes

Link to comment
Just now, tutankamun said:

Maybe we need to agree to disagree?

You’re a Commie living in the USA.

I’m not a Commie living in the people’s republic of Scotland ?

I'm a Commie in intent, a Capitalist in Practice. 

If I could wave a magic wand, though, we'd all be living in decentralised, self-governing, people's anarchistic communes. 

Now that's probably worth laughing at. 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

I'm a Commie in intent, a Capitalist in Practice. 

If I could wave a magic wand, though, we'd all be living in decentralised, self-governing, people's anarchistic communes. 

Now that's probably worth laughing at. 

 

I laughed. Utopia

’Champagne Socialist’ springs to mind.

 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

“This sort of thing” FFS

A clear sign to the proles that freedom of speech will not be tolerated.

Wake the fuck up man.

But my freedom stops where yours begins.

This wasn't a case of someone having a different opinion based on their own life experience or outlook.

This was a situation where a man with the financial resources to make a proper investigation chose instead, to publicize deliberate lies for his own financial gain.

Well, in my view, he overstepped the boundaries of his own freedom and encroached upon the rights of others, leading to a significant detriment to their lives, as has just been upheld.

Is Jones still free to think these thoughts? Yes. Is he free to express his views to whomever he may have dinner with tomorrow? Yes.

His freedom of speech is still intact. 

 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, tutankamun said:

“This sort of thing” FFS

A clear sign to the proles that freedom of speech will not be tolerated.

Wake the fuck up man.

But his freedom of speech is being tolerated by the government. He can go right back on the radio tomorrow and continue to lie about Sandy Hook. 

Again, this was a civil case to determine whether or not his words had caused real world harm, and they were found to have caused exactly that. 

His 1st amendment is intact. 

He might want to make better decisions going forward, or not, his choice. 

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...