Bus With Anti-Transgender Message Banned

[Luminesa]

The term is Poe's Law.

Godwin's Law. Poe's law is when reality has gotten so ridiculous you can't tell who's a troll and who is seriously advocating a platform.

Gracias. I knew it was one of them.

[Luminesa]

You have said before that you want for everyone to be a quasi-hive-mind. Either that's authoritarian or you have no idea what you're talking about.

That's actually the endgame of my transhumanist views, not my ideal government.

But that's authoritarian. Your personal views are authoritarian, regardless of how you see your government should be run.

[Raszezsar]

I have no problem, no problem at all, with these people rotting in jail until such time as they can either prove they were right, which would be rather easy if they were in fact not lying, or make a public apology and retract their false statements.

See, this is the thing I have a problem with. Your proposal goes directly against innocent until proven guilty. The accuser would have to be the one to prove the falsities to be false in a court of law for this not to be a violation of that.

[The V O I D]

That's actually the endgame of my transhumanist views, not my ideal government.

But that's authoritarian. Your personal views are authoritarian, regardless of how you see your government should be run.

No. An endgame of transhumanist views does not a set of political views make.

Politically, I support a constitutional parliamentary republic with a strong, staunch social progressive constitution that utilizes censuses and referendums (referenda?) on matters that cannot be agreed upon (e.g. legalization of marijuana, for instance).

[Luminesa]

But that's authoritarian. Your personal views are authoritarian, regardless of how you see your government should be run.

No. An endgame of transhumanist views does not a set of political views make.

Politically, I support a constitutional parliamentary republic with a strong, staunch social progressive constitution that utilizes censuses and referendums (referenda?) on matters that cannot be agreed upon (e.g. legalization of marijuana, for instance).

You change your political views every time you talk about them, then you claim people do not know your views, and then you act like you're above others for it. So sorry if I was mistaken, but all I hear is a big load of nothing. If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything. But I threadjack now, as do you. I'm afraid to inform you that your views, as much as you might love talking about them, are not the topic of every thread on NS.

[Sanctissima]

But that's authoritarian. Your personal views are authoritarian, regardless of how you see your government should be run.

No. An endgame of transhumanist views does not a set of political views make.

Politically, I support a constitutional parliamentary republic with a strong, staunch social progressive constitution that utilizes censuses and referendums (referenda?) on matters that cannot be agreed upon (e.g. legalization of marijuana, for instance).

There's a bit of cognitive dissonance going on if your ideal society (or at least that which you think Transhumanism would ultimately result in) is something akin to the Borg from Star Trek, yet politically you want so see something almost entirely different.

Further proof that synths are soulless abominations, naturally.

[The V O I D]

No. An endgame of transhumanist views does not a set of political views make.

Politically, I support a constitutional parliamentary republic with a strong, staunch social progressive constitution that utilizes censuses and referendums (referenda?) on matters that cannot be agreed upon (e.g. legalization of marijuana, for instance).

There's a bit of cognitive dissonance going on if your ideal society (or at least that which you think Transhumanism would ultimately result in) is something akin to the Borg from Star Trek, yet politically you want so see something almost entirely different.

Further proof that synths are soulless abominations, naturally.

I have a soul. You hurt my feelings with your degradation.

[Sanctissima]

There's a bit of cognitive dissonance going on if your ideal society (or at least that which you think Transhumanism would ultimately result in) is something akin to the Borg from Star Trek, yet politically you want so see something almost entirely different.

Further proof that synths are soulless abominations, naturally.

I have a soul. You hurt my feelings with your degradation.

Impossible. You are a synthetic abomination. Synths don't have souls, everyone knows that.

On a side note, I find it interesting that your idealized view of Transhumanism is, debatably, the logical conclusion of Communism. Space Commies.

[The V O I D]

I have a soul. You hurt my feelings with your degradation.

Impossible. You are a synthetic abomination. Synths don't have souls, everyone knows that.

On a side note, I find it interesting that your idealized view of Transhumanism is, debatably, the logical conclusion of Communism. Space Commies.

My idealized view of the conclusion of transhumanism is deeply rooted in some communistic aspects, I'll admit that. A quasi-hivemind that operates like a consensus direct democracy of all minds within it; making all socioeconomic decisions and lawmaking power, etc.

But that's not the topic of discussion. Let's take it to the transhumanism thread if you wanna talk about it further. Or TGs.

[Des-Bal]

If you aren't encouraging someone to commit a crime or saying you'll commit one yourself Free Speech should win every time.

[Mechanisburg]

I have no problem, no problem at all, with these people rotting in jail until such time as they can either prove they were right, which would be rather easy if they were in fact not lying, or make a public apology and retract their false statements.

See, this is the thing I have a problem with. Your proposal goes directly against innocent until proven guilty. The accuser would have to be the one to prove the falsities to be false in a court of law for this not to be a violation of that.

It would make it so the burden of proof will reside on the individual making a claim, and not on the rest of the world having to disprove it. Which is as it should be. After all, proving truth is relatively easy, and saying "I was mistaken" even easier. Proving falsehood? Kek.

[Aelex]

It would make it so the burden of proof will reside on the individual making a claim, and not on the rest of the world having to disprove it. Which is as it should be. After all, proving truth is relatively easy, and saying "I was mistaken" even easier. Proving falsehood? Kek.

Ever heard of the concept of "Probatio Diabolica"? Because our judiciary system massively rely on it to avoid putting innocents people in prison and you proposing to abolish it just so you can jail more easily people for having opinions that aren't the same as your is sure to fuck things up massively beyond what you intended to.

[Raszezsar]

See, this is the thing I have a problem with. Your proposal goes directly against innocent until proven guilty. The accuser would have to be the one to prove the falsities to be false in a court of law for this not to be a violation of that.

It would make it so the burden of proof will reside on the individual making a claim, and not on the rest of the world having to disprove it. Which is as it should be. After all, proving truth is relatively easy, and saying "I was mistaken" even easier. Proving falsehood? Kek.

Riddle me this. How does one prove anything right from inside the prison?

[Zalgon]

This is a violation of free speech. They were stating fact, and the fact that the left used it as an excuse for 'hate speech' just shows they want to force this 'transgenderism' thing down our throats.

Frankly it's their message. They didn't even state any scientific facts like the fact that medically, being transgender is a mental disorder confirmed by several psychiatric experts. Mind you, I do think it can be "cured," nor that is is really bad. But they go with the line "don't let them fool you." That isn't debate that's shitposting put on a bus.

I believe you are being mistaken. Transgenderism itself is not a mental disorder. http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.aspx However, gender dysphoria is. People commonly mistake gender dysphoria for transgenderism or believes them to be the same thing. That is not true. While gender dysphoria IS similar to transgenderism in terms of that both share a common factor of gender nonconformity, gender dypshoria is not a mental illness because of it. Gender nonconformity itself is not a mental illness. Gender dysphoria is only a mental illness because of the distress that comes with said nonconformity. However, if a transgender person does not show significant emotional distress as a result of their gender identity, they do not have a mental illness. Here is the official DSM-5 article for gender dysphoria: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 7sK5_C7pGg

[Angry and Defeated Cucks]

There is nothing in that message that could provoke hate crimes. This is a plain and simple violation of the basic right to free speech.

This. They are stating their opinion, however loathsome it may be, and they are not suggesting or condoning violence. Banning this message is heading down a dangerous path. Intelligent adults should be able to have intelligent discussions about their disagreements.

[Luminesa]

Impossible. You are a synthetic abomination. Synths don't have souls, everyone knows that.

On a side note, I find it interesting that your idealized view of Transhumanism is, debatably, the logical conclusion of Communism. Space Commies.

My idealized view of the conclusion of transhumanism is deeply rooted in some communistic aspects, I'll admit that. A quasi-hivemind that operates like a consensus direct democracy of all minds within it; making all socioeconomic decisions and lawmaking power, etc.

But that's not the topic of discussion. Let's take it to the transhumanism thread if you wanna talk about it further. Or TGs.

Communism is inherently authoritarian. If your ideas are "deeply rooted" in communism, you're not for democracy. Perhaps you need to pay attention in Civics class, from now on.

[Luminesa]

See, this is the thing I have a problem with. Your proposal goes directly against innocent until proven guilty. The accuser would have to be the one to prove the falsities to be false in a court of law for this not to be a violation of that.

It would make it so the burden of proof will reside on the individual making a claim, and not on the rest of the world having to disprove it. Which is as it should be. After all, proving truth is relatively easy, and saying "I was mistaken" even easier. Proving falsehood? Kek.

A person could say, "I was mistaken," for the sake of being denied a harsher sentence. That doesn't necessarily mean their views have changed. Furthermore, you have to define "falsehood". At what point do you start throwing people in jail simply for being "wrong"? The law requires, by definition, concrete laws and consequences. Law cannot be defined simply by throwing people who disagree with you into jail, unless you're planning on replicating Soviet Russia.

[Raszezsar]

My idealized view of the conclusion of transhumanism is deeply rooted in some communistic aspects, I'll admit that. A quasi-hivemind that operates like a consensus direct democracy of all minds within it; making all socioeconomic decisions and lawmaking power, etc.

But that's not the topic of discussion. Let's take it to the transhumanism thread if you wanna talk about it further. Or TGs.

Communism is inherently authoritarian. If your ideas are "deeply rooted" in communism, you're not for democracy. Perhaps you need to pay attention in Civics class, from now on.

Irony police, apprehend this criminal.

[Neutraligon]

My idealized view of the conclusion of transhumanism is deeply rooted in some communistic aspects, I'll admit that. A quasi-hivemind that operates like a consensus direct democracy of all minds within it; making all socioeconomic decisions and lawmaking power, etc.

But that's not the topic of discussion. Let's take it to the transhumanism thread if you wanna talk about it further. Or TGs.

Communism is inherently authoritarian. If your ideas are "deeply rooted" in communism, you're not for democracy. Perhaps you need to pay attention in Civics class, from now on.

Given that an actua communist government has no leader, no government at all, how can it be authoritarian?

[Aelex]

Given that an actua communist government has no leader, no government at all, how can it be authoritarian?

Given that pretty much every communist government so far ended up turning into authoritarian dictatorship, I think her assessment is very fair. :^)

[Mechanisburg]

It would make it so the burden of proof will reside on the individual making a claim, and not on the rest of the world having to disprove it. Which is as it should be. After all, proving truth is relatively easy, and saying "I was mistaken" even easier. Proving falsehood? Kek.

Riddle me this. How does one prove anything right from inside the prison?

As I said, there'd be a relatively long grace period, and they'd have access to the Internet inside the prison for the purpose of providing proof. It's not like a prison has to be a hellhole without any kind of amenity.

[McWarlordiaTM]

What is hate speech?

The word is thrown around so much, we've actually forgotten what it means. It's not hate speech to state facts, this is what the transgender agenda wants you to think so you'll excuse their bullshit. By associating transgederism (ideology) with sexism they've made it and thus themselves unquestionable, and if you do you're sexist. Just like Islam (ideology) and racism, if you question Islam you're racist.

There is an agenda, it's never going to be exposed by people like the group in the article because they're far right radicals and no one will listen to them. Also huffpost GTFO.

[Mechanisburg]

It would make it so the burden of proof will reside on the individual making a claim, and not on the rest of the world having to disprove it. Which is as it should be. After all, proving truth is relatively easy, and saying "I was mistaken" even easier. Proving falsehood? Kek.

A person could say, "I was mistaken," for the sake of being denied a harsher sentence. That doesn't necessarily mean their views have changed. Furthermore, you have to define "falsehood". At what point do you start throwing people in jail simply for being "wrong"? The law requires, by definition, concrete laws and consequences. Law cannot be defined simply by throwing people who disagree with you into jail, unless you're planning on replicating Soviet Russia.

Why do you think I would care about their views being changed?

Because I don't. The only thing I care about is stopping people from spreading misinformation and falsehood by peddling their opinion as fact, or by relying on debunked sources to further their agenda. This is also how I would define falsehood: if you don't support what you say and it can be proven wrong by a cursory search, or if what you say is supported by sources that were proven wrong and this can be proven by a cursory search, unless you can find something else or retract your statement you'd end up in prison.

[Aelex]

Why do you think I would care about their views being changed?

Because I don't. The only thing I care about is stopping people from spreading misinformation and falsehood by peddling their opinion as fact, or by relying on debunked sources to further their agenda. This is also how I would define falsehood: if you don't support what you say and it can be proven wrong by a cursory search, or if what you say is supported by sources that were proven wrong and this can be proven by a cursory search, unless you can find something else or retract your statement you'd end up in prison.

>Implying jailing people for their opinion isn't going to make their opinion looks more legitimate

[Raszezsar]

Riddle me this. How does one prove anything right from inside the prison?

As I said, there'd be a relatively long grace period, and they'd have access to the Internet inside the prison for the purpose of providing proof. It's not like a prison has to be a hellhole without any kind of amenity.

And why on Earth would that be necessary if that can be done in a court of law?