Sayonara

How is me saying "your arguments are subjective" a subjective argument? If you are going to call me arrogant and hypocritical you had better give me a damned good answer. Wtf?

Over millions of years, I suppose so

No it's ok - I just found out the steel alloys react with the acids that cause the smell, which means you can use any steel implement!

Nope. Where did you get it?

You do realise that not everyone has the same priorities as you, right? For instance, the millions of people who will pay extraordinary amounts of money to do things that are thrilling because they are dangerous. Not that there is much more risk associated with this ship than there is with any other chartered stunt or novelty flight. [edit] By the way, when I asked DeltaNova "what has that got to do with anything?", it was because his post added nothing to the thread other than further subjectivity of a type that has already been shown to be irrelevant, and did not address the question in any way, so I don't see much point in pursuing it. Just a thought.

I find that offensive. Go and walk around the martyred town of Oradour sur Glane, and then come back here and tell me what you think would have happened to anyone living in the Haute-Vienne if the 2nd Waffen-SS Panzer Division that arrived there that fateful day had met armed resistance. That kind of disregard for civilian life on the part of the Nazis was the reason the French capitulated, not because none of them had the means to meet force with force. I fully realise that you have been conditioned by your society to overestimate yourselves as some kind of gung-ho G.I. Joe sleepers, ready to save the American Way of Life® and the world at large should the need ever arise, but in truth you're more likely to run into a bullet with your face than someone who has not been spoon-fed delusions of heroism. Something tells me that was not the deciding factor, never mind the only factor involved. You'd have to be some kind of retard to take that alleged quote as being the entire basis of the USSR's entire Cold War strategy, as opposed to the logistics of invasion and the actual threat of the American fleets, air force and army. It would be if it was (a) not an exagerration and (b) not spread out over an absolutely vast area. In an invasion of the US mainland, you would almost certainly lose cities to occupation forces. Good luck with finding out how much fun guerilla warfare isn't. Yes, the best way to ensure people don't ever die is to allow the general public to think that they are empowered and qualified to identify and shoot "terrorists". Winning strategy there Someone who is not operating under the delusion that the general public are capable of organising themselves into an effective armed force at the drop of a hat. Or possibly someone who doesn't think that hunting rifles and shotguns are going to be terribly effective against long-range ordnance, tanks, planes, APCs, offshore bombardment, military hardware, and - of course - lots and lots of trained soldiers. Not very much, because I actually do know a bit about North Korea. Yeah, because on all the occasions when the Chinese people actually have rebelled, with or without guns, everything worked out so well for them Perhaps you mean because I am more likely to refer to something vaguely realistic, due to the fact that I come from a country that has been both the invader and the invaded, on many occasions, sometimes successful and sometimes not, while you come from a country that has a record of invading smaller countries that have comparably pitiful defences. Or maybe you are referring to the little tiff 60 years ago, which apparently I "don't remember but should", during which the UK managed for five years to hold off an unprecedented invading force the likes of which the world had never seen. See, we didn't need to arm the general population because we had this amazing idea which involved intercepting the enemy forces before they arrived. Gee wow, we sure do have some crazy schemes up our sleeves. ps - I realise that was a particularly scathing post, I suspect you were regurgitating things you've heard or been told rather than actually thinking about the question. If that's not so, then I apologise in advance.

You know, that kind of help probably doesn't.

A favicon?

I think he probably means 'interchangeable'.

Well to be honest it turns out we agree on more significant points than we disagree on. Noted for future reference.

I think we can take it as read that the people who can afford the space excursions in the first place aren't going to "go for the cheaper option", what with it not being anything like the same experience. If you're going to use that argument then why not dodge some heavy traffic instead of going sky diving? That's just as thrilling and costs $400 less.

I find that a really curious thing to say. What exactly does it mean? Surely you aren't living in constant anticipation of millions of generic foreign devils suddenly swimming ashore one day?

No it doesn't. No you don't. No we don't. Assuming you could remove people's rage, surely that would make their counter-control activities more focused and organised? Do you live in Russia then?

What has that got to do with anything?

Damn it, I thought I'd taken that bit out. Well yes, but I don't think this is really a discussion that either of us wanted or planned to have. It's kind of in a metaphysical state somewhere between being vaguely and not a bit relevant :-/ Yes, 'asshole' is content (however I would disagree that it has any specifically unique significance, which is key to any argument that involves restriction of free speech, and it certainly conveys no profound concepts). You will notice I did not claim that content cannot have inherent emphasis - I am simply arguing that emphasis itself is not content. The profanity I am talking about in relation to the content/not content argument is that which adds no structural value to what is being said. Well quite. Other circumstances and information will determine how it is interpreted though, and I don't see the sense in ignoring that and instead focusing on what the FA fails to specify. No, I am not saying they are entirely different - I am saying that what applies to one may not necessarily apply to the other, but at the same time the existence of these exemptions demonstrates that other things can also be argued exempt without compromising the intended purpose of the FA. I was under the impression this is how it all worked, but I am open to the possibility that Reese Witherspoon lied to me. I don't see how that has anything to do with my argument, which is that the idea of free speech is intended to protect one's right to say a thing, but not the means by which it is said. However, for the record, my personal opinion is that a unilateral law against profanity actually would be so unworkable as to be ineffective, so although I am less convinced than you that it would infringe on your rights, I can at least agree with you on the overall stance. Man says profanity charge violates free speech rights By AP/mjh Posted: 12/6/2003 (Manistee-AP) -- A man who prosecutors say broke a local ordinance while cursing and making obscene gestures at a police officer in public is arguing such actions are constitutionally protected. Duane Barton is on trial after being charged in a July encounter with Manistee Police Officer Jeff Pefley during which prosecutors say Barton grabbed his groin area and yelled at the officer. Barton denies he used profanity and, he says, it would have been constitutionally-protected speech if he had. In April 2002, the state Court of Appeals struck down a state law against using vulgar language in front of women and children Well, that one doesn't actually give an outcome, does it? All it shows is that someone else had a similar discussion to this one. The mother of three was rushing a load of groceries to her sister's house when she was pulled over by an officer who said she had made an incomplete stop. When told her driver's license was suspended, Upshaw used a profanity to describe her day. She ended up in jail for her choice of words. A judge dismissed the charges, again because Johnson's words were not sexually obscene Every state has laws against foul language, but the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have generally agreed that the words have to be used in a violent or sexually obscene context, said John Burkoff, associate dean and law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Uttering something vulgar or profane is not, in itself, grounds for arrest, he said. All that demonstrates is that some profanities are not against the law (as well as the fact that the police cannot always be relied on to interpret the law properly), which we already know. Again, I am not arguing that profanities are or should be illegal. The second case involves Amy Johnston, 27, a Chatham University undergraduate student and part-time children’s nanny, and Gregory Lagrosa, 29, a library assistant with the Carnegie Library and part-time graduate student at the University of Pittsburgh. On November 26, 2000, the couple was exiting the Homestead Giant Eagle grocery store when a police car nearly ran them over in the crosswalk. When Amy yelled, “It’s a crosswalk, asshole,” the officer chased them down and made enraged comments about being called an “asshole.” He then arrested both of them. A judge subsequently dismissed all charges. “Not one of these three people did anything illegal,” said Bruce Boni, a volunteer ACLU lawyer handling the Upshaw case. “The police officers were offended by profanity, so they abused their authority and misused the public trust by arresting upstanding, law-abiding citizens.” Several witnesses to the Johnston/Lagrosa arrest protested to the arresting officer that Johnston and Lagrosa had done nothing wrong and that he was not hired to arrest people because he doesn’t like their language. http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n070202a.html Well, we already agree that a profane noun is content so I would expect that to be protected by the first amendment anyway. Again, however, you have simply provided an example of profanity being "not illegal", which is not what I thought this discussion is supposed to be about. Yeah, we should probably get back on topic. The vultures are circling. My argument does not require that I demonstrate that. The only reason I brought it up was to show that you were making value judgements without actually evaluating anything, which can't take you anywhere 'good'. The "significance or profundity" in this case does not come from the question mark itself, but from the circumstances under which it was sent and received, as I thought I had already said. Sending a single question mark to your publisher under the circumstances specified only indicates that a query has been made. It doesn't actually hold content on its own - the meaning is derived from knowledge of the situation. Had the publisher's cleaning lady opened the letter, it would have gone in the bin. True, but I notice you don't attempt to link this to specific accusations. In the case of me saying you were arguing against a false proposition, you actually were. As far as the ad hominem goes I retract that statement. I had originally intended to remove it after proof-reading my last post and realising your actual intent.

Depends how fast you are going.

Because a vast number of Hispanics in the USA use Spanish as their primary language maybe.

Can I point out for future reference in this thread that saying why you don't support Kerry is not answering the question.

That doesn't have anything to do with the post you replying to.

Everything that can be said over there has been said already. It's got to the point now where people are arguing points that already got destroyed 300 posts back. As a (presumably responsible) gun owner, do you think you would be happier if the NRA carried out its mandate of educating gun owners on safety and awareness etc, but did not have a political agenda? (Assume for the sake of argument that removing their political side would not open the door to any anti-gun action.)

No, if I wanted to attack you I would not make it subtle. I can't be responsible for how you interpret my posts, but I can make an effort to ensure they are less ambiguous. So I will. Right. Let me make it more clear what I was talking about: - Refsmmat asked if "[Russia] should be allowed to do this?" in a thread entitled "Free Speech". - Afaik Russia does not actually have a law or constitutional ruling regarding free speech in the same way that the USA does, hence my reply "yes?". - Refsmmat then made a post that had absolutely nothing to do with the Russian situation, and discussed both his distaste for hearing profanities (which I take to be in his culture, which means the USA) and a non-profane option available to "you" (which I take to mean his contemporaries in his culture, which means citizens of the USA). - Hence my reply regarding free speech. It had nothing to do with the Russian law - it was relating to and descriptive of USA law and followed on from the original poster's comments. You assumed that I was talking about something else, so I certainly hope that helps clear things up a bit. The content is the subject, the object and the action. Emphasis of any kind can be added or removed without changing the content. What emphasis does change is the tone of the content, which is not content in itself but a property of it, and therefore the overall meaning of what is said (where 'meaning' is taken to be the combined concept and circumstances - my response to your novelist example is a bit more straightforward.) That's not correct, because theory is often different from practice, especially where practical examples require additional constraints or parameters. In this particular case, me agreeing with "The bill of rights was meant to give general rights that congress and the courts would interpret" does not magically lead on to "profanity is covered by the first amendment". Ah, an ad hominem. Hurrah. The point is that none of these things are protected speech under the first amendment, which is what I was talking about when you disagreed with me. It illustrates that not protecting profanity under the guise of freedom of speech is not special pleading. Yes, but you will still be liable to be held accountable for what you say. Also true, but not really relevant to anything. You seem to be suggesting some relationship between libel etc and profanity, and I'm not sure why. I certainly didn't say that they were directly linked or inter-dependent. What you are doing here is arguing against a false proposition. An anti-profanity law would not simply be to "stop a few teenagers from saying potty words". You are also insisting on including the conditional "without great need", despite the fact that nobody has demonstrated the condition has not been met. "I could provide evidence of what I said but I don't want to". Well you seemed to be okay with "the bill of rights was meant to give general rights that congress and the courts would interpret" so it seems only logical that the next step of your argument would be to demonstrate how a profanity is protected. The easiest way to do that is by precedent. Note that I am talking about every-day profanities of the type the Russian law aims to reduce, not some contrived and unlikely instance that bears no relation to their common usage and is not representative of profane delivery. I really don't recall saying that. This is fair enough. If anything, the continued discussion has highlighted that we have both misunderstood each other at different points. Well yes, I agree completely. But when I am saying "this is how the law stands in country X right now", talking about a possible future law doesn't really affect what I said in any way. I don't think that line of the discussion got either of us anywhere useful tbh. I share the sentiments on both issues. However I am not so certain that free speech does - or should extend to cover 'anything anybody can say'. It is very easy to say something that infringes on the rights of another person or party (which is of course why things like libel are not protected). We have to face the fact that no society will ever be ideal or free of compromise, not even in law. No, it doesn't does it? It can only be a good idea if you actually include a reason for doing it there as well. Not really. There are some specific instances where emphasis can be used as content (as you illustrate below) but this is usually a form of pseudocontent that relies on context to provide the actual meaning - the pseudocontent itself does not have to be the original emphasis entity (in your example, the question mark) - it could be anything. Smilies are a good example of emphasis used as pseudocontent. You are synonymising (sp?) meaning and content. Unlike content, which is presented "as is", meaning can be derived. This is made very easy in a scenario like the one you described, where the context is already set and only several avenues of interpretation are qualified by the expectations of both parties. What YT said ^

From the article: How is that un-nemesis like?

Because splitting the requirements into two separate biddable contracts is just soooo difficult. It is a bit fishy tbh.