It's mah birfday...

[Captain Utopia]

It was a simple question (You have a line that you will draw, so where is that line?) - if you don't want to answer it, you can just come out and say so.

All that I can gather from your response is that you believe in free speech, but that would lead me to conclude that you would allow the publication of child porn, or borderline child porn.

To be blunt, I don't believe you.

I don't beleive me either. I told you, I've lost it... why get in-depth with a gibbering lunatic... I beleive nothing...

The downside to not playing with a full deck is that you run out of cards all the quicker.

You've played the "free speech" and "internet" and "i'm soo crazy" cards, and they've all been out-played. I want to get in-depth with you, and I want to see what answer you have for the question. You came here to be challenged, didn't you?

you make it sound like you think its wrong for him to have discordant beliefs.  Yeh, see how i used discordant on purpose?  I could have said contradictory, but then I might have had to spend longer making my point.

x

I do think it's wrong when people say that they wouldn't censor anything out of principle, but can't answer a simple question upon which that principle is based. Kinda makes everyone else who supports that principle look stupid. Playing the "discordian" card in this manner is an infinite loop in of itself - fair enough - but it doesn't answer the question

[Roaring Biscuit!]

I do think it's wrong when people say that they wouldn't censor anything out of principle, but can't answer a simple question upon which that principle is based. Kinda makes everyone else who supports that principle look stupid. Playing the "discordian" card in this manner is an infinite loop in of itself - fair enough - but it doesn't answer the question

no it doesn't, maybe its not even a question he can answer.  Personally I leave stuff like that down to instinct, and when i try to rationalise that I almost always come out with contradictory bollocks (bandname?).  I'd probably say I support free speech, but I would probably draw the line before I started publishing child porn.  But up until the moment aforementioned article was submitted for publication, I'd probably be saying that people can submit whatever the hell they want.

Basically I find it difficult to say what does or doesn't offend me until I'm actually offended.

[fomenter]

maybe its a stupid question,

for example it would be a stupid question to ask if ... he drew the line at the same point as everyone who has a website and supports free speech draws it "no posting things that can get the owner in legal trouble"

or a stupid question if he doesn't care if the law gets broken and he isn't going to admit it because KYFMS and he doesn't want to get caught..

[Dimocritus]

I do think it's wrong when people say that they wouldn't censor anything out of principle, but can't answer a simple question upon which that principle is based. Kinda makes everyone else who supports that principle look stupid. Playing the "discordian" card in this manner is an infinite loop in of itself - fair enough - but it doesn't answer the question

no it doesn't, maybe its not even a question he can answer.  Personally I leave stuff like that down to instinct, and when i try to rationalise that I almost always come out with contradictory bollocks (bandname?).  I'd probably say I support free speech, but I would probably draw the line before I started publishing child porn.  But up until the moment aforementioned article was submitted for publication, I'd probably be saying that people can submit whatever the hell they want.

Basically I find it difficult to say what does or doesn't offend me until I'm actually offended.

Thank you, this post really helps. I had beliefs and ideals and stances and all that, but like Mr. Biscuit said, in the end they end up nullifying themselves and each other. It is a cycle of perpetual self destruction. That is why I developed an interest in Eristic and Discordian thought. I figured that, if I'm not getting anywhere chasing my tail, I might as well enjoy myself doing it. Also, I hate it when people play the "My cousin/brother/aunt/friend lived/died/disappeared from cancer/drunk driving/alien lobotomy, so you are not allowed to make jokes about it" card. Also, if you want a better understanding of what I think, there are examples of my writing at cautionmag.com. It's not a lot at the moment, but I think you'll find (if you actually read it) that it's quite a bit more diverse than you would be willing to accept.

[Captain Utopia]

Troll ruint.

I do think it's wrong when people say that they wouldn't censor anything out of principle, but can't answer a simple question upon which that principle is based. Kinda makes everyone else who supports that principle look stupid. Playing the "discordian" card in this manner is an infinite loop in of itself - fair enough - but it doesn't answer the question

no it doesn't, maybe its not even a question he can answer.  Personally I leave stuff like that down to instinct, and when i try to rationalise that I almost always come out with contradictory bollocks (bandname?).  I'd probably say I support free speech, but I would probably draw the line before I started publishing child porn.  But up until the moment aforementioned article was submitted for publication, I'd probably be saying that people can submit whatever the hell they want.

Basically I find it difficult to say what does or doesn't offend me until I'm actually offended.

Fair enough - I think that is a solid answer.

maybe its a stupid question,

for example it would be a stupid question to ask if he drew the line at the same point as everyone who has a website and supports free speech draws it "no posting things that can get the owner in legal trouble"

or a stupid question if he doesn't care if the law gets broken and he isn't going to admit it because KYFMS and he doesn't want to get caught..

Valid points. I'm not sure they apply here though. His case was basically "Don't complain to me about stuff other contributors post, because I assume no responsibility for it - free speech - internet - I'm crazy!". Which is completely different from RBs case-by-case angle or just a simple "I'm sorry you were offended, we're trying out different things and some of it is bound to offend some people - that's kind of the point"

[fomenter]

well if he allows anything up to the point of trouble with the law and somebody posts crap but its not illegal he is not responsible for it....

he thought it was funny and x-posted it over here and that he is responsible for and is the issue, not what is the line on his web site.  

you seem to be asking the wrong question

[Captain Utopia]

If he has the power to approve or remove content, then he can't just throw his hands up in the air and magically claim that he has no responsibility.

It's there whether he likes it or not.

[Dimocritus]

Valid points. I'm not sure they apply here though. His case was basically "Don't complain to me about stuff other contributors post, because I assume no responsibility for it - free speech - internet - I'm crazy!". Which is completely different from RBs case-by-case angle or just a simple "I'm sorry you were offended, we're trying out different things and some of it is bound to offend some people - that's kind of the point"

I'm starting to think that I don't fully understand what you're gripe is. I am also wondering if it is because I just don't understand, on account that I am new here and am still unaware of the common practices, or if you are not being fully clear on what you're gripe is. Bottom line- I may be new, but I've read the Principia and the Illuminatus! and I'm pretty sure I understand the meanings of most of it. You are attempting to oppose your own grid on what me and my associates are doing. That is bull-shit, and no matter how right or wrong you may be, I will never accept any imposition. You want to know my stance? Well figure it the fuck out, I have plenty of writings available to read and have already made many posts here that you can also review to come to your own conclusion (which you are more than welcome to) I have no need to explain myself. Also, I came here to participate in my own way, not necessarily to have my mentality "challenged." (It seem to me that there are enough "mentally challenged" folk here). So, if you want to discuss something aside from trying to pick apart my nearly non-existent belief system, I will be more than happy to participate.  

[fomenter]

If he has the power to approve or remove content, then he can't just throw his hands up in the air and magically claim that he has no responsibility.

It's there whether he likes it or not.

he already told you he supports free speech (the right to post crap or gold ) on his site he also sports the right to call other peoples posts crap or gold as they see fit that's how free speech works..  

[fomenter]

FYI fiction puss is also a noob and an ass,  he is testing his claws on you, he posted a bunch of dumb shit and got called on it when he showed up, and is trying to do the same to you (poorly)

[Captain Utopia]

Troll not ruint.

I've read the Principia and the Illuminatus! and I'm pretty sure I understand the meanings of most of it.

You're one ahead of me then, I'm only half-way through both.

You are attempting to oppose your own grid on what me and my associates are doing. That is bull-shit, and no matter how right or wrong you may be, I will never accept any imposition. You want to know my stance? Well figure it the fuck out,

No, I was simply asking you a question of where you draw the line with regards content you would remove if a contributor added it and you had a problem with it (e.g. child porn). You said you'd censor nothing, and refused to comment on how you would approach the examples I proposed. Your right. I didn't demand that you answer the question, and in fact said that you're welcome to ignore it, but I did point out when you avoided it entirely. Which you are still doing.

How am I trying to impose a grid upon you? You're free to ignore me and my questions.

[Cain]

Just FYI, if I deleted everything on this site I found questionable or distasteful, there would be 50% less posts.

And Giggles would be permabanned (not that it would stop him).

[Dimocritus]

Troll not ruint.

I've read the Principia and the Illuminatus! and I'm pretty sure I understand the meanings of most of it.

You're one ahead of me then, I'm only half-way through both.

You are attempting to oppose your own grid on what me and my associates are doing. That is bull-shit, and no matter how right or wrong you may be, I will never accept any imposition. You want to know my stance? Well figure it the fuck out,

No, I was simply asking you a question of where you draw the line with regards content you would remove if a contributor added it and you had a problem with it (e.g. child porn). You said you'd censor nothing, and refused to comment on how you would approach the examples I proposed. Your right. I didn't demand that you answer the question, and in fact said that you're welcome to ignore it, but I did point out when you avoided it entirely. Which you are still doing.

How am I trying to impose a grid upon you? You're free to ignore me and my questions.

Ok then, in that case, the answer to your question is Smoked Haddock Galoshes. 

[Captain Utopia]

If he has the power to approve or remove content, then he can't just throw his hands up in the air and magically claim that he has no responsibility.

It's there whether he likes it or not.

he already told you he supports free speech (the right to post crap or gold ) on his site he also sports the right to call other peoples posts crap or gold as they see fit that's how free speech works..  

How is this relevant to "I told you, I can't (and won't) control or censor the contributors of my site" - is the legal issue implied?

[fomenter]

No, I was simply asking you a question of where you draw the line with regards content you would remove if a contributor added it and you had a problem with it (e.g. child porn). You said you'd censor nothing, and refused to comment on how you would approach the examples I proposed. Your right. I didn't demand that you answer the question, and in fact said that you're welcome to ignore it, but I did point out when you avoided it entirely. Which you are still doing.

How am I trying to impose a grid upon you? You're free to ignore me and my questions.

maybe its a stupid question,

for example it would be a stupid question to ask if ... he drew the line at the same point as everyone who has a website and supports free speech draws it "no posting things that can get the owner in legal trouble"

or a stupid question if he doesn't care if the law gets broken and he isn't going to admit it because KYFMS and he doesn't want to get caught..

its still a stupid question friction puss - if he has a free speech zone then the law is the line
- if he is an outlaw he knows to keep his fucking mouth shut.
end of story