Not only do you have people here advocating violent overthrow of the US government, you have people advocating giving racist hategroups guns, and people here who advocate all kinds of other things. If wizards has any sense they will shut this board down pronto.
Not only do you have people here advocating violent overthrow of the US government
... no... you had someone say "that's in the constitution". Pointing out something is in the constitution (correctly or not) isn't the same as advocating it.
[...] you have people advocating giving racist hategroups guns
... right... you do realize that as far as I'm "advocating giving racist hategroups guns" (which is a gross simplification of my actual position), I'm also "advocating giving homophobic hategroups guns"?
So it's not like I'm singling you (or anyone else) out, just objecting to treating people like criminals before they commit crimes. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.
Seriously, I didn't realize taking a stance for our constitution given rights was so controversial. Freedom isn't convenient or easy, and at times that means sacrificing a bit of safety. But to paraphrase Ben Franklin, if you would give up freedom for safety, you deserve neither and will lose both.
Not only do you have people here advocating violent overthrow of the US government
... no... you had someone say "that's in the constitution". Pointing out something is in the constitution (correctly or not) isn't the same as advocating it.[...] you have people advocating giving racist hategroups guns
... right... you do realize that as far as I'm "advocating giving racist hategroups guns" (which is a gross simplification of my actual position), I'm also "advocating giving homophobic hategroups guns"?
So it's not like I'm singling you (or anyone else) out, just objecting to treating people like criminals before they commit crimes. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz.
Seriously, I didn't realize taking a stance for our constitution given rights was so controversial. Freedom isn't convenient or easy, and at times that means sacrificing a bit of safety. But to paraphrase Ben Franklin, if you would give up freedom for safety, you deserve neither and will lose both.
I don't see how any one can read any of those posts and not be seriously offended and seriously question what kind of people are posting here.
I don't see how any one can read any of those posts and not be seriously offended and seriously question what kind of people are posting here.
Then let me educate you.
It's called defending the indefensible.
The "Chilling effect".
"Innocent until proven guilty"
"Harm none, and do as ye will"
Knowing the difference between rhetoric and action.
The first amendment.
The second amendment.
The fifth amendment.
The sixth amendment.
The belief that rights shouldn't be dependent on public opinion.
The knowledge that freedom isn't free, and that if I can take a right or freedom away from someone else, they can probably do the same to me, and they won't be as nice as me.
So you want to know why I'll defend the rights of bigots, haters, prisoners, felons and other undesirables? Because it's the right thing to do, even if it's a dirty task. Because you're not a principled person for taking on the easy fights when you know you'll be popular and supported, you're a principled person for taking on the ones you don't want to defending people you hate because it's still right to do so, even when it's not popular, fun, or going to look good on me.
Anyone can be a loud-mouthed advocate when talking about stripping rights of unpopular groups. It takes someone with real conviction in their beliefs and ideals to defend the same. So as much as I may hate all those groups you'd love to strip the rights of, I will still defend their constitutional rights until such time as by their own actions they give them up.
I mean you were free to spout off about stripping people of their rights but someone isn't supposed to say, "You/They can't."
The freedom of speech doesn't mean much to you, does it? I'm guessing you think we shouldn't be allowed to say whatever we want.
This is the internet man, it's all about the flow of information and clashing of opposing view points. You cannot in this country close a website down because someone said something you didn't like.
Not only do you have people here advocating violent overthrow of the US government, you have people advocating giving racist hategroups guns, and people here who advocate all kinds of other things. If wizards has any sense they will shut this board down pronto.
I might have been away from the forums for a while but these things do not sound like anything any of the regulars i know would advocate.
Without reading into or trying to figure out what you are directly referring to then my guess is that you're thinking a forum troll to be an accurate representation of the community or you've grossly taking something out of context.
I'd suggest rereading. Do it slowly. Take out your bias or at least as much as you can manage. Think about what the text means (don't imply author's meaning or change word usage when interpreting) and come back after you've had a reread of whatever it is that is so upsetting you. With a clearer mind and a clearer picture tell us what you think of whatever it is you read. I doubt it would be the same view.
Not only do you have people here advocating violent overthrow of the US government, you have people advocating giving racist hategroups guns, and people here who advocate all kinds of other things. If wizards has any sense they will shut this board down pronto.
I totally agree! And while we're at it the D&D forums should be shut down too, we all know its a bunch of satanists! And the MtG sites need to go to, I think its dumb therefore it should go. Oh and get rid of the Star Wars forums too, WotC isnt renewing the licence so no reason it should be here. In fact I think every forum that does not conform to my own ideology should be banned, any one who thinks differently than me should be shot, Freedom of Speech needs to be taken out of the Bill of Rights, after all some one could say something that might offend some one else.
The above is meant to be sarcastic, and not to be taken seriously.
But seriously, THIS IS SPARTAAAA!!!!!
*Kicks PippyPrawnStocking down a bottomless pit!*
I don't see how any one can read any of those posts and not be seriously offended
I think that right there is the crux of the issue...
and seriously question what kind of people are posting here.
Yes, let's seriously question what kind of people are posting here. Let's start with you.
Not only do you have people here advocating violent overthrow of the US government, you have people advocating giving racist hategroups guns, and people here who advocate all kinds of other things. If wizards has any sense they will shut this board down pronto.
. . .
Freedom of speech is THE foundation of western society. If you don't like what is posted, you are not obliged to read it. If you do choose to read it, you are implicitly taking responsibility for the fact that you might read something you either don't agree with or find reprehensible. You run that risk every time you pick up a newspaper, a magazine, a flyer, or turn on the tv or radio.
Furthermore, your solution (abolishing the OT forums) punishes everyone who uses the OT forums. If you have a valid concern that someone is advocating hate, revolution, terrorism, or whatever, then take it to the moderators. That's essentially what they're there for.
In the meantime, I'm surprised of the recent "complaints", and am curious as to a noticeable correlation (which, admittedly does not necessarily imply causation) to the participants therein.
Of course, that is the way of things I suppose. If you can't immediately shut down the entire system, shut down one portion at a time. Eventually, enough will be deterred so the "unwanted" elements will no longer be visible (I'd say no longer be present, but such is seldom the case).
I don't see how any one can read any of those posts and not be seriously offended and seriously question what kind of people are posting here.
Then you have a very poor understanding of people. The fact that you claim you cannot belive any such people exists illustrates that clearly. Being out of touch is all well and good, but it is something that I find is better handled when one is aware of it.
I might have been away from the forums for a while but these things do not sound like anything any of the regulars i know would advocate.
Without reading into or trying to figure out what you are directly referring to then my guess is that you're thinking a forum troll to be an accurate representation of the community or you've grossly taking something out of context.
Well, no. It was mostly EE, and he mostly got the context right, if a bit slanted. Still, I think the first reply was the most apt (even if EE has been picking a surprising number of fights latley. Shame on you.)
I don't see how any one can read any of those posts and not be seriously offended
This is pure bias (realized or not). The above can be reworded simply - you don't see how any one would not share your opinion. This, to me, seems a rather closed view of the world and its workings. Given almost ANY topic of conversation, there will be opinions across the spectrum of possibilities. For some reason, however, as you state, this particular topic is one where you believe that your OPINION on it is or ought to be universal. In short, you feel your opinion is the only "correct' one to be had.
and seriously question what kind of people are posting here.
This directly flows from the above. Moreover, it is a (not so) veiled insult at those that express a dissenting opinion. See my prior post for the general theme that you (knowingly or not) seem, to me, to express in many of your posts. "Those who know what's best for us..." Of course, the scientist and cynic in me always need to ask - and what if they (those who...) are wrong?
Now, I understand (based on your original post) that such a thought may not occur to you. However, consider this: by your own admission you cannot see that there may be other opinions. This necessarily implies that you lack awareness that differeing opinions would exist. Lack of awareness is given a term -
ignorance: he state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness (from m-w)
That said, consider this post to be an attempt to impart some knowledge, education and awareness to you. Opinions, even those of the majority of the population, are subject to change. They have constantly over the course of the human experience. It wasn't that long ago (in the scale of human society) that slavery was not only accepted but considered the preferred means of dealing with portions of the population. Today, such a thought is considered wrong. In another thousand years, this may be reversed. Cannibalism is another such custom - one which I could imagine shifting back yet again. Why do I point this out - because they are just more examples of what is "right" being temporal, not permanent. (insofar as what is accepted - my personal belief is that there is a absolute right and wrong. Hence, I placed the word in quotations above - but that is another story.)
In the name of full disclosure, I will also add that my personal belief is that there is such a universal right or wrong, However, I am not presumptuous enough to believe that I am fully aware of that universal - in other words, I am ignorant to the truth of it. Moreover, as stated, I reject those that insist that they have such awareness. After all, all (or at least most) of the groups bandied about in the other thread, that you (and others) seem so adamant against, believe (and often state) that THEY have the truth of it. Is there a reason I should believe your version over theirs? Mind you, as stated above, the "popular opinion" of this time and place is not an acceptable answer for, as shown, that IS subject to change.
...but where will I create threads about strawberries? D:
Talk about threads that should be closed. People were actually referring to them as fruit!!! Can you believe it? Lies and propaganda - provably false, yet THAT thread is allowed to persist.
/thread
(I don't think he's coming back)
you have people advocating giving racist hategroups guns, and people here who advocate all kinds of other things.
I don't get why you're surprised. As far as I know, it is not illegal for members of racist, homophobic, sexist, nationalistic, or otherwise hateful and prejudged groups with a history of violence to own guns, which should tell you that the majority of people are in favour of it. Why should it be different on this board? No one is, or was, advocating handing out free handguns to anyone, they were just saying, and rightly so, that unless the group in question is already illegal, you shouldn't take people's rights away for being members of it.
Oh, for crying out loud. Would you ---- (persons -ed) stop babbling about freedom of speech? If WotC decides to shut down the forum, because this guy says they should, your rights have not been violated. They are under no obligation to let you say anything here. If anything it is a PR thing, a corporate thing, not a bloody 'American Freedoms" thing.
I am reluctantly forced to agree, even if the person I'm agreeing with in this case is TA
I'm already living in a country where you can barely open your mouth without someone accusing you of violating their freedom of speech, I'm sick of people resorting to it at every (in)opportune moment. No one is violating anyone's rights here, let's just stick to the topic of why closing the OOT is a bad idea.
Are we an imageboard nao?I don't see how any one can read any of those posts and not be seriously offended and seriously question what kind of people are posting here.
Then let me educate you.
It's called defending the indefensible.
The "Chilling effect".
"Innocent until proven guilty"
"Harm none, and do as ye will"
Knowing the difference between rhetoric and action.
The first amendment.
The second amendment.
The fifth amendment.
The sixth amendment.
The belief that rights shouldn't be dependent on public opinion.
The knowledge that freedom isn't free, and that if I can take a right or freedom away from someone else, they can probably do the same to me, and they won't be as nice as me.
So you want to know why I'll defend the rights of bigots, haters, prisoners, felons and other undesirables? Because it's the right thing to do, even if it's a dirty task. Because you're not a principled person for taking on the easy fights when you know you'll be popular and supported, you're a principled person for taking on the ones you don't want to defending people you hate because it's still right to do so, even when it's not popular, fun, or going to look good on me.
Anyone can be a loud-mouthed advocate when talking about stripping rights of unpopular groups. It takes someone with real conviction in their beliefs and ideals to defend the same. So as much as I may hate all those groups you'd love to strip the rights of, I will still defend their constitutional rights until such time as by their own actions they give them up.
This isn't about public opinion. It is about belonging to dangerous groups that are no different than terrorist groups or gangs.
Actually given the amount of heat I've received for my position, I don't think I am taking the easy fight. Freedom of speech is one thing. But allowing people who belong to hate groups that advocate mistreatment of other races to own guns is beyond the pale.
The freedom of speech doesn't mean much to you, does it? I'm guessing you think we shouldn't be allowed to say whatever we want..
Freedom of speech means plenty to me. But this is a gaming site, it isn't a public forum. If people want to make distasteful comments or support hate hate groups right to own guns (something very frightening to people like me who have had to put up with the KKK and skin heads in their life), then the forum should be closed. This isn't about hate groups being allowed or not allowed to think what they want. It is about groups that advocate hate and violence against minorities, not being able to purchase firearms because everyone knows what kinds of activities they engage in.
Furthermore, your solution (abolishing the OT forums) punishes everyone who uses the OT forums. If you have a valid concern that someone is advocating hate, revolution, terrorism, or whatever, then take it to the moderators. That's essentially what they're there for.
At a certain point it becomes clear the forum is just a place for people to say hateful and disgusting things on Wizard's dime. I've been reviewing many of the threads here, and all I can say is I am astounded this forum is allowed to remain open.
you laugh, Robin - but the OP has shown (and possibly acted upon) the notion that thoughts are to be controlled. Freedom of thought is, after all, the most dangerous of all. Independant critical thinking is to be condemned, all must be "with the program". Very reminiscent of a movie from some time back (the one where folks were arrested before the crime).
This has nothing to do with controlling peoples' thoughts. I've never advocated taking away freedom of speech or ideas. I just said let's treat hate groups the way we treat terrorist groups. They shouldn't be allowed to buy guns. These people have gone far past the stage of contemplation. They belong to organizations that are culpable for racial violence.
I don't see how any one can read any of those posts and not be seriously offended and seriously question what kind of people are posting here.
Then let me educate you.
It's called defending the indefensible.
The "Chilling effect".
"Innocent until proven guilty"
"Harm none, and do as ye will"
Knowing the difference between rhetoric and action.
The first amendment.
The second amendment.
The fifth amendment.
The sixth amendment.
The belief that rights shouldn't be dependent on public opinion.
The knowledge that freedom isn't free, and that if I can take a right or freedom away from someone else, they can probably do the same to me, and they won't be as nice as me.
So you want to know why I'll defend the rights of bigots, haters, prisoners, felons and other undesirables? Because it's the right thing to do, even if it's a dirty task. Because you're not a principled person for taking on the easy fights when you know you'll be popular and supported, you're a principled person for taking on the ones you don't want to defending people you hate because it's still right to do so, even when it's not popular, fun, or going to look good on me.
Anyone can be a loud-mouthed advocate when talking about stripping rights of unpopular groups. It takes someone with real conviction in their beliefs and ideals to defend the same. So as much as I may hate all those groups you'd love to strip the rights of, I will still defend their constitutional rights until such time as by their own actions they give them up.
This isn't about public opinion. It is about belonging to dangerous groups that are no different than terrorist groups or gangs.
Actually given the amount of heat I've received for my position, I don't think I am taking the easy fight. Freedom of speech is one thing. But allowing people who belong to hate groups that advocate mistreatment of other races to own guns is beyond the pale.
How is being a law-abiding, constitution respecting citizen "beyond the pale" by any definition?
If they break the law, arrest them and take their guns. If they don't, there is no reason to do so. It's simple.
Being hateful and saying hateful things is not the same as committing hate crimes.
No one here is doing the things you're claiming they're doing.
EE would likely be the first person up against the wall if any of the groups you mentioned actually did what they claim they want to do. He in no way supports their ideals or arming them, but he also doesn't support denying them constitutionally protected rights simply because he disagrees with everything they stand for (and likely their very existence).
In the name of full disclosure, I will also add that my personal belief is that there is such a universal right or wrong, However, I am not presumptuous enough to believe that I am fully aware of that universal - in other words, I am ignorant to the truth of it. Moreover, as stated, I reject those that insist that they have such awareness. After all, all (or at least most) of the groups bandied about in the other thread, that you (and others) seem so adamant against, believe (and often state) that THEY have the truth of it. Is there a reason I should believe your version over theirs? Mind you, as stated above, the "popular opinion" of this time and place is not an acceptable answer for, as shown, that IS subject to change.
Are you serious? Are you really taking moral relativisim to the extreme where racist hate groups are to be legitimated? Don't you realize these are groups that regularly beat, murder and intimidate people like me because of the color of my skin? These aren't just bored teenagers shooting the breeze. The groups I mentioned all engage in real violence and continue to do so. That is their reason for existing. TO say "well I am not going to pass judgment because who knows, they may have a point" is just insane reasoning.
I don't see how any one can read any of those posts and not be seriously offended and seriously question what kind of people are posting here.
Then let me educate you.
It's called defending the indefensible.
The "Chilling effect".
"Innocent until proven guilty"
"Harm none, and do as ye will"
Knowing the difference between rhetoric and action.
The first amendment.
The second amendment.
The fifth amendment.
The sixth amendment.
The belief that rights shouldn't be dependent on public opinion.
The knowledge that freedom isn't free, and that if I can take a right or freedom away from someone else, they can probably do the same to me, and they won't be as nice as me.
So you want to know why I'll defend the rights of bigots, haters, prisoners, felons and other undesirables? Because it's the right thing to do, even if it's a dirty task. Because you're not a principled person for taking on the easy fights when you know you'll be popular and supported, you're a principled person for taking on the ones you don't want to defending people you hate because it's still right to do so, even when it's not popular, fun, or going to look good on me.
Anyone can be a loud-mouthed advocate when talking about stripping rights of unpopular groups. It takes someone with real conviction in their beliefs and ideals to defend the same. So as much as I may hate all those groups you'd love to strip the rights of, I will still defend their constitutional rights until such time as by their own actions they give them up.
This isn't about public opinion. It is about belonging to dangerous groups that are no different than terrorist groups or gangs.
Actually given the amount of heat I've received for my position, I don't think I am taking the easy fight. Freedom of speech is one thing. But allowing people who belong to hate groups that advocate mistreatment of other races to own guns is beyond the pale.
How is being a law-abiding, constitution respecting citizen "beyond the pale" by any definition?
If they break the law, arrest them and take their guns. If they don't, there is no reason to do so. It's simple.
Being hateful and saying hateful things is not the same as committing hate crimes.
No one here is doing the things you're claiming they're doing.
EE would likely be the first person up against the wall if any of the groups you mentioned actually did what they claim they want to do. He in no way supports their ideals or arming them, but he also doesn't support denying them constitutionally protected rights simply because he disagrees with everything they stand for (and likely their very existence).
Vegan, we don't allow people who belong to violence and criminal organzations purchase firearms. Hate groups like the ones I describe, go well beyong speech. These are violent organizations. You can be charged with a crime simply for belonging to a gang. Belonging to a violent hate group is the same as being part of a gang or terrorist organization. And I for one, don't want them owning firearms. I don't care what escher's background is. He is going well beyong supporting constitutional rights of people with odd ideas. He is supporting violent hategroups' ability to procure dangerous arms.
Vegan, we don't allow people who belong to violence and criminal organzations purchase firearms. Hate groups like the ones I describe, go well beyong speech. These are violent organizations. You can be charged with a crime simply for belonging to a gang. Belonging to a violent hate group is the same as being part of a gang or terrorist organization. And I for one, don't want them owning firearms. I don't care what escher's background is. He is going well beyong supporting constitutional rights of people with odd ideas. He is supporting violent hategroups' ability to procure dangerous arms.
Did you know there is a difference between violence, crime, and hate?
Gang members shoot people. Often. And when they do, they lose thier rights. If gangs just stood around talking crap at each other and then walked away, they wouldn't take their guns away.
Many of the organizations you mentioned banning guns for do not actually commit crimes. They espouse extremely stupid and ignorant ideas, and, if I had my way, they would all be tortured until they changed their mind or shot.
Fortunately, I don't commit violent crimes and despite the fact that I hate everyone that belongs to a hate group I should still be able to own a gun, because I'm not a criminal.
Which is sad and I agree that they shouldn't have guns based on my "gut" but I don't agree that the government should take their guns on legal grounds, since there are legal and constitutional restrictions stopping the government from doing so.
Are you serious? Are you really taking moral relativism to the extreme where racist hate groups are to be legitimated? Don't you realize these are groups that regularly beat, murder and intimidate people like me because of the color of my skin? These aren't just bored teenagers shooting the breeze. The groups I mentioned all engage in real violence and continue to do so. That is their reason for existing. TO say "well I am not going to pass judgement because who knows, they may have a point" is just insane reasoning.
It's not about them having a point. It's about, as we say in my country, frihed for Loke såvel som for Thor, freedom for Loke as well as for Thor. No one is saying Loke is right, that's not what this principle is about.
I don't think you're taking the easy way out. I admire you for taking a stand, even an unpopular one, but simply I don't agree with you. If the organisation is already illegal, the members are felons and should be treated as such. If the organisation is allowed, but is incompatible with a democratic society, it should be made illegal. But if it's not illegal, taking away the rights of the members sets a dangerous precedent that most people here, and most people in your own country, are not willing to set.
It's not about condoning, it's about not making rights solely into a question of what you condone. I'm not in favour of the US weapon law in the first place, but if it's there, it should apply to everyone except those who've proven, by action not association, that they're incapable of handling it. I don't know the specifics about your country, but the handling of hate groups is most likely an important and relevant issue. But it is a question of legality, not gun control, and it is not specific to this board.
I’ve removed content from this thread because XXX is a violation of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code of Conduct here: wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wizards.cfg...
Due to complaints received about this thread, I've closed it. The thread will be reviewed to determine if it should be permanently closed, re-opened, and/or a new thread or threads created in its place.