|
I'm not trying to challenge what your decision is in this post, i'm just continuing to clarify my opinion since i think it was misperceived. Anyway...
quote:
Originally posted by jusunlee
PsychoSnowman
i dont want to go off tangent and argue with you about the validity of freedom of speach/expression and how the us government handles it. i have some opposing views, but maybe ill start a debate thread later instead.
good idea, i was thinking the same thing.
quote:
but let me say this in response to the argument youve presented: there is nothing in the netiquette the explicitly forbids people from demanding repercussions when they are offended. for the same reasons damnkorean has the right to use such username, people have the right to demand him to change it. it would be a bit hypocritical to grant such right only to one party and forbid it to another.
Granted, but i tend to not like pleas of people that ask for an exception in any structural code that leads to a more inhibiting and censoring and also oppressive system. I didn't say they couldn't be offended, nor that they should not have the right to be. I'm saying go ahead, but don't expect any results. For the reason taht they are asking for an exemption in this case for his name to be taken (on the basis of his username not his actions) away, and that's not breaking any rule in the nettiquette.
quote:
but i personally take a different view of the whole matter, as i stated earlier (not to be didactic in any way). in society, it is the offender we try to rehabilitate to not offend, not the other way around. in the same way, i believe if anyone has to compromise, it would have to be damnkorean (even when considering only his username and not his actions), as he is the cause of the problem, not the people who were offended. its my a personal belief that it is much more effective to solve a problem by addressing the cause rather than the effects of it.
Yeah, we think differently on this. I don't like punishing the offender, becuase usually i think the only reason he is an "offender" is because of the biggoting nature that exists within society that won't allow whatever the crime to be considered not an offense. This is directly opposite from what you said and i know i'm not trying to make you change your mind i'm just getting my point of view across, if anyone is to compromise, it should be the people who are in offense in this case because they are calling for a breaking of the rule (i.e. making him change his name), not one who is in perfect accordance with teh nettiquette. Who has broken the rule and become offensive? the people, and we shouldn't reject him on the basis of majority opinion.
I realize we do this in our status quo, punishing the perpetrator, and i just think it's not hte most optimal and logical way to do things. In ways, it is didactic.
quote:
and to your response to 'why not': i understand that. but for you to deny the peoples right to become offended and demand repercussions with a simple 'why not' would put you to the same light as one of them. for as many reasons you may have to defend your assertions, they have for theirs as well. to be didactic and assert that you are right is what im trying to suggest is wrong (which, unfortunately, would be impossible without being didactic, putting me to the same light as well). thus, it is my personal belief that a simple 'why not' never justifies for any action.
I'm not denying their right to become offended though, i'm saying they shouldn't be granted the exemption they desire for his username to be taken away on the mere basis of some perceived moral high ground. I don't think i'm in the same instance because i'm not trying to break the rules, i don't htink i was articulating it clearly enough. But, it all comes down to me not limiting the emotions of the people, but rather not allowing them to be granted the exemption they want when it would be not right in my opinion. Not hypocritical, they can be offended, that was in mind when freedom of speech was enacted, but the offense hsouldn't outweigh the essence of the standard. The why not justification was saying that since there are other perspectives with equal or less (supplemented on the basis of empathetic morality...) weight than the one i was on, then there is no reason to advocate either. But, i think that the mere fact that we may be moving towards a breaking of the nettiquette in their calling for him to rename his username shouldn't be pursued which is why i advocate my view.
quote:
as for the username Jesus, i dont think i ever clarified, hes real name isnt Jesus - ofcourse had it been his real name, his username would have been perfectly acceptable. instead, he deliberately used that username to bring attention to himself. hes a friend of Alchemist actually.
ah, all right. Thanks.
note: throughout the post i subsumed everyone into the category of who was offended that "they" would want him to change his name, i know it's not everyone and far from it, but i dind't want to spend the extra words every single time i mentioned themt o clarify who i was talking about. Thanks.
__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.
"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell
|
02-15-2003 01:28 AM
