If emotional pain is 'fake' due to being electrons buzzing around a neural network then why is physical pain 'real' when it's literally the same thing?
I'm just pointing out the absurdity of trying to discredit any human experience by breaking it down to the most basic biological functions.I think if watson's point is that emotional pain is not the same as physical pain, we can agree.
I think what watson is missing is whether this type of speech incites bullying or hatred (which does actually lead to serious emotional and physical pain). Which is something that protestors have an imperative to prove, before they call it hatespeech.
Ah divisive. Always used pejoratively. Sort of like bi-partisan is always used positively.More relevantly, how much should Australian's spend to listen to someone who is divisive, who wont debate anyone so that her drivel is found out, and most importantly has nothing to offer for the betterment of Australia? Let the police have the afternoon off.
And Environmentalism.You can say the same thing about why people follow any idiotic philosophy though, be in a religion, Communism, Nationalism or Libertarianism. They're all equally ****ed up.
I've heard this used many times by pseudo-intellectual nationalists so you're going to have to elaborate here.Ah divisive. Always used pejoratively. Sort of like bi-partisan is always used positively.
I don't want the country to "come together", "unite", or any of that platitudinous crap. I want division and polarisation. It's healthy for society.
Tell us what you really think...maybe divisive was just my clean way of saying she is a stupid racist piece of **** who will not debate anyone for fear of them showing she is a stupid racist piece of ****.
I've heard this used many times by pseudo-intellectual nationalists so you're going to have to elaborate here.
Also I think this thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis process isn't much good if the synthesis of the polarised ideas never actually happens, which might be becauseIt's quite possible for "coming together" and "uniting" to be something short of an absolute good and for division and polarisation to still be undesirable. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
I agree with the 'platitudinous crap' as I see no point in watering down a perfectly reasonable argument just because someone is overly precious and can't handle their emotions.Ah divisive. Always used pejoratively. Sort of like bi-partisan is always used positively.
I don't want the country to "come together", "unite", or any of that platitudinous crap. I want division and polarisation. It's healthy for society.
Every single time!.... How about you coin the word for religionist - the world needs it. Until then, we all know what is meant by calling a religionist racist.Tell us what you really think...
Also, against which race would you say she's racist?
And for the millionth time - a religion is merely a set of ideas that modifies an individual's behaviour, not their genetic phenotypemaybe divisive was just my clean way of saying she is a stupid racist piece of **** who will not debate anyone for fear of them showing she is a stupid racist piece of ****.
I think if watson's point is that emotional pain is not the same as physical pain, we can agree.
I think what watson is missing is whether this type of speech incites bullying or hatred (which does actually lead to serious emotional and physical pain). Which is something that protestors have an imperative to prove, before they call it hatespeech.
I agree with most of this - probably all - not that that means much. I just wonder why I should pay to let a person speak who is not open to fair debate. As far as Australian's go, who does she represent?I agree with the 'platitudinous crap' as I see no point in watering down a perfectly reasonable argument just because someone is overly precious and can't handle their emotions.
However, the end game for society is not 'division and polarisation' at all, but concensus and peaceful co-existence.
The paradox of course is that in order to minimise 'division' and 'polarisation' within society the toxic ideas and ideologies that cause them have to be bitterly debated and strongly resisted. This is where 'freedom of speech' comes in.
yes - and for the billionth time, that set of ideas is something which people can discriminate on. Have you ever told a religious person he is a ****wit and had them say "You know what Watson - you are right - I'm coming to the dark side" Personal Religious preference is not as open to change as you seem to think it is.And for the millionth time - a religion is merely a set of ideas that modifies an individual's behaviour, not their genetic phenotype
You know this goes both ways. These people are not into debate - they are into making a point that misses most of the target audience while gratifying their ego. They are all bulldogs and bulldogs do not create useful dialogue.That is only half true. The over-riding point in the case of Hirsi Ali, Dawkins, Hitchens, Rushdie, and Danish Cartoonists et al is that the reaction to them is at times utterly disproportionate to their words or message.
Actually no.yes - and for the billionth time, that set of ideas is something which people can discriminate on. Have you ever told a religious person he is a ****wit and had them say "You know what Watson - you are right - I'm coming to the dark side" Personal Religious preference is not as open to change as you seem to think it is.
How about you coin it instead of misapporpriating a word with a different meaning?Every single time!.... How about you coin the word for religionist - the world needs it. Until then, we all know what is meant by calling a religionist racist.