143 replies to this topic

[Jam-Fly]

lol, I believe no one has the right to insult people or try to make them change their faith. I believe everyone should be fully entitled to believe in what they want to believe in, so long as it is not harmful to others. That's what I believe. Who are you to tell me that what I say is wrong. If you use that argument, there's not really any reason for having this forum. Nearly every thread consists of someone making a statement and someone else disagreeing with it. If each time this happend, you could claim "You can't say he is wrong, he is entitled to his opinion". Well then this whole thing would get pretty reduntant. I am allowed say Spademan is ignorant? Or is that violating his freedom of speech? Maybe I should just stay quiet so I don't violate his freedom of speech...

[Jam-Fly]

solderz, on Tuesday, May 19th, 2009, 5:23 PM, said:

FYP.I'm not sure if you live in the U.S. or not, but here we have a little thing called Freedom of Speech and are quite entitled to insulting whomever we would like to insult (as long as it is not defamation or slander).

oh btw, is "Hey Idiots" not slanderous?

[solderz]

Jam-Fly, on Thursday, May 21st, 2009, 9:02 AM, said:

oh btw, is "Hey Idiots" not slanderous?

slandern. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one's occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much as if not more than printed publications.The above is from law.com. No, Hey idiots is in no way slanderous. I am assuming you can read and comprehend, so I will not explain why.

[Piddle Duck]

Jam-Fly, on Thursday, May 21st, 2009, 1:02 PM, said:

oh btw, is "Hey Idiots" not slanderous?

noEdit: dammit, I totally didn't see that post about me. Personally I would just say no and then watch him try and explain what he thinks slander means.

[Spademan]

Jam-Fly, on Thursday, May 21st, 2009, 9:00 AM, said:

lol, I believe no one has the right to insult people or try to make them change their faith. I believe everyone should be fully entitled to believe in what they want to believe in, so long as it is not harmful to others. That's what I believe. Who are you to tell me that what I say is wrong. If you use that argument, there's not really any reason for having this forum. Nearly every thread consists of someone making a statement and someone else disagreeing with it. If each time this happend, you could claim "You can't say he is wrong, he is entitled to his opinion". Well then this whole thing would get pretty reduntant.

I actually laughed out loud. Thank you, that rarely happens on the forums.Your contradiction here is so mind numbingly staggering that it is blinding in its stupidity. (No, that isn't slanderous, because you are being stupid and I literally suffered momentary blindness while reading your post, and am therefore merely stating fact.) To go from: lol, I believe no one has the right to insult people or try to make them change their faith. I believe everyone should be fully entitled to believe in what they want to believe in, so long as it is not harmful to others. to stating: That's what I believe. Who are you to tell me that what I say is wrong. followed directly by:If you use that argument, there's not really any reason for having this forum. Nearly every thread consists of someone making a statement and someone else disagreeing with it. If each time this happend, you could claim "You can't say he is wrong, he is entitled to his opinion". Well then this whole thing would get pretty reduntant.is so preposterous that I can only think that at least 30% of those who read your post will ultimately suffer cancer as a result. (That might be a little slanderous.)I mean, seriously? You can't see your hypocrisy here? One sentence right after the other. Seriously?You say that it would be redundant and that the argument would be stupid if someone said, "You can't say he's wrong", and then the very next sentence say "That's what I believe, who are you to tell me that what I say is wrong."Haha, seriously?I am still laughing. I am bouncing as I strike the keys because the laughs are coming from the gut.So awesome.

Jam-Fly, on Thursday, May 21st, 2009, 9:00 AM, said:

I am allowed say Spademan is ignorant? Or is that violating his freedom of speech? Maybe I should just stay quiet so I don't violate his freedom of speech...

ROFL

[Sportsmack]

Spademan, on Thursday, May 21st, 2009, 11:18 AM, said:

I actually laughed out loud. Thank you, that rarely happens on the forums.Your contradiction here is so mind numbingly staggering that it is blinding in its stupidity. (No, that isn't slanderous, because you are being stupid and I literally suffered momentary blindness while reading your post, and am therefore merely stating fact.) To go from: lol, I believe no one has the right to insult people or try to make them change their faith. I believe everyone should be fully entitled to believe in what they want to believe in, so long as it is not harmful to others. to stating: That's what I believe. Who are you to tell me that what I say is wrong. followed directly by:If you use that argument, there's not really any reason for having this forum. Nearly every thread consists of someone making a statement and someone else disagreeing with it. If each time this happend, you could claim "You can't say he is wrong, he is entitled to his opinion". Well then this whole thing would get pretty reduntant.is so preposterous that I can only think that at least 30% of those who read your post will ultimately suffer cancer as a result. (That might be a little slanderous.)I mean, seriously? You can't see your hypocrisy here? One sentence right after the other. Seriously?You say that it would be redundant and that the argument would be stupid if someone said, "You can't say he's wrong", and then the very next sentence say "That's what I believe, who are you to tell me that what I say is wrong."Haha, seriously?I am still laughing. I am bouncing as I strike the keys because the laughs are coming from the gut.So awesome.

[BigDMcGee]

Jam-Fly, on Thursday, May 21st, 2009, 12:00 PM, said:

lol, I believe no one has the right to insult people or try to make them change their faith. I believe everyone should be fully entitled to believe in what they want to believe in, so long as it is not harmful to others. That's what I believe. Who are you to tell me that what I say is wrong. If you use that argument, there's not really any reason for having this forum. Nearly every thread consists of someone making a statement and someone else disagreeing with it. If each time this happend, you could claim "You can't say he is wrong, he is entitled to his opinion". Well then this whole thing would get pretty reduntant. I am allowed say Spademan is ignorant? Or is that violating his freedom of speech? Maybe I should just stay quiet so I don't violate his freedom of speech...

[Jam-Fly]

solderz, on Thursday, May 21st, 2009, 6:10 PM, said:

slandern. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another, which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit. Damages (payoff for worth) for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malicious intent, since such damages are usually difficult to specify and harder to prove. Some statements, such as an untrue accusation of having committed a crime, having a loathsome disease or being unable to perform one's occupation, are treated as slander per se since the harm and malice are obvious and therefore usually result in general and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Words spoken over the air on television or radio are treated as libel (written defamation) and not slander on the theory that broadcasting reaches a large audience as much as if not more than printed publications.The above is from law.com. No, Hey idiots is in no way slanderous. I am assuming you can read and comprehend, so I will not explain why.

the definition I took waswords falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another "Hey Idiots" directed at people who are religious, are words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another. Spademan, my argument is pretty simple, I fail to see why you don't understand it. You said nothing regarding my post, you just quoted it and said this is stupid, without explaining why.You believe X. I believe Y. You say that you are free to have your opinion, and I cannot disagree with your opinion. Then I said that this argument can be applied to every opinion. Which means, that anytime someone expresses an opinion on this forum, we are not allowed disagree with him?OK, whatever you say...

[Spademan]

My lord.

[Jam-Fly]

Spademan, on Friday, May 22nd, 2009, 7:21 PM, said:

My lord.

lol

[Piddle Duck]

Jam-Fly, on Friday, May 22nd, 2009, 1:51 PM, said:

the definition I took waswords falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another "Hey Idiots" directed at people who are religious, are words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another.

Ummm...no.Since you are not speedz I will say this...your reading comprehension sucks. Slander is ruining someone's reputation. Who's reputation was ruined? No one's. He stated an opinion about a group and then insulted them. That is an insult, not slander. They are not mutually exclusive.You seem to be ignoring what comes after your definition which usually has what constitutes damaging a persons rep and it does not include insults like "you're an idiot." More like, "hey bob, the guy in accounting, he has AIDS." "Hey Bob, the guy in accounting, he has been stealing $200/day out of the petty cash fund." Under no circumstances is "Hey Bob, the guy in accounting is an idiot" slander. Ever.Slander is a legal term. It is a civil tort in which to base a suit against someone. Who is the plaintiff here? All religious people. Can't happen, it has to be an individual or an entity. You need 4 things to prove slander...1. Prove the defendant communicated the statement2. that someone other than the defendant heard or read it3. the communication was about the plaintiff and that anyone else reading it would know it was about the plaintiff4. the plaintiff must show that his/her reputation was damaged as a result of the communicationGood luck.

[Dhall901]

Captain Adama, on Wednesday, May 20th, 2009, 4:50 PM, said:

I think I feel more sorry for you because you take things written on a message board on the internet too seriously. Does his post really hurt you so much? Do you lay awake at night angry or upset or frustrated by what some anonymous dude posted in the religion forum of a poker website. Do you see how ridiculous it looks. Sure, you will say that it doesn't actually bother you but it must bother you somewhat for you to come back and post such negative things toward another human being. Seems a tad bit hypocritical as well. God is shaking his head at you for being easily tempted.

I fail to see where I was so negative. I simply stated that the guy seems like a sad person; that I feel sorry for someone in such pain. The man seems to be so self-involved he doesn't realize how much of a counter-productive member of society he is. If millions of people believe in something that helps them live good lives, who is anyone to judge? To create a post in order to simply degrade people is awful. Such closed-mindedness should bother people. It's individuals such as this that invite others to detest America. Furthermore, this is exactly the type of ideology that indirectly causes the death of our soldiers. Think about it that way o' wise one.Edit..here's a real kicker for ya, I'm not even religious.

[Piddle Duck]

Dhall901, on Friday, May 22nd, 2009, 4:26 PM, said:

I fail to see where I was so negative. I simply stated that the guy seems like a sad person; that I feel sorry for someone in such pain. The man seems to be so self-involved he doesn't realize how much of a counter-productive member of society he is. If millions of people believe in something that helps them live good lives, who is anyone to judge? To create a post in order to simply degrade people is awful. Such closed-mindedness should bother people. It's individuals such as this that invite others to detest America. Furthermore, this is exactly the type of ideology that indirectly causes the death of our soldiers. Think about it that way o' wise one.

You honestly believe he is in pain? Just from a post? I don't think you can get a true sense of a person by his words alone on a poker forum. At least not as far as you are going with it. How are you really though any different? He makes a post simply to get a reaction out of someone. You respond in a way that clearly shows that you want to get a reaction out of him. If you didn't you wouldn't try to drive home the fact that you think he is a sad person and whatever else it was you said. Are you trying to state that your judgment of him was not negative? Calling someone sad is not a compliment correct? Not very Christian imo. My suggestion and looks to be Adama's position is not take posts on a poker message board so seriously. Some, not me mind you, but some could say that you are "sad" yourself for being so easily offended.But this is what makes this place so entertaining. Watching people react.Edit: just saw your edit so I will cross off my one comment. DAMMIT I JUDGED! lol

[Spademan]

Dhall901, on Friday, May 22nd, 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

I simply stated that the guy seems like a sad person; that I feel sorry for someone in such pain.

You look silly every time you go here. Everyone I know in life knows I live a badass, joyful, exuberant, laugh filled life.I would guess even most forum members would get that impression, if they have any ability to reason their way to the point of my posts.

Dhall901, on Friday, May 22nd, 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

The man seems to be so self-involved he doesn't realize how much of a counter-productive member of society he is.

This is just stupid assumption. I spend my time trying to save lives while you are eating cheet-o's and masturbating to midget porn.

Dhall901, on Friday, May 22nd, 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

If millions of people believe in something that helps them live good lives, who is anyone to judge?

I am. I am one to judge. Religion does not help 90% of people who believe in it live good lives. They are just as fucked up as the "non-religious", and oftentimes more so. This is just drivel, which seems to be par for the course for you.Also, your drowning yourself in hypocrisy. You "judge" me to be "sad" and "full of pain" and a "counter-productive member of society". You "judge" as "awful" for creating a post in order to degrade people. You "judge" me as closed minded. You are a fucking walking, breathing, typing, shitting contradiction: you are judging all over the place and then condemning someone for judging. We are both being judgmental, the only difference is my judgments are well reasoned, well presented and actually have something to do with reality whereas yours are inane assumption wrapped in a steaming pile of contradiction.

Dhall901, on Friday, May 22nd, 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

Furthermore, this is exactly the type of ideology that indirectly causes the death of our soldiers.

What ideology? Do you just type words at random and hope to make a point? Do you even know what ideology means, now that you've learned how to actually spell it?

Dhall901, on Friday, May 22nd, 2009, 12:26 PM, said:

Edit..here's a real kicker for ya, I'm not even religious.

I guess this is a good time to point out that it isn't just religious people that can be idiots.

[BigDMcGee]

Spademan loaded up this thread with a mess o' fail bait, and boy is the fail bitin'.

[Dhall901]

[quote name='Spademan' date='Friday, May 22nd, 2009, 6:24 PM' post='3123130']You look silly every time you go here. Everyone I know in life knows I live a badass, joyful, exuberant, laugh filled life.I would guess even most forum members would get that impression, if they have any ability to reason their way to the point of my posts.Well I'm going to need notarized proof of just how cool you really are. You can get that from any customer service representative at your local bank. This is just stupid assumption. I spend my time trying to save lives while you are eating cheet-o's and masturbating to midget porn.Ah, you assume I'm into midget porn. No, not midget porn. I actually prefer making love to my wife. However, sometimes the urge to spend a night in paris just calls to me.I am. I am one to judge. Religion does not help 90% of people who believe in it live good lives. They are just as fuc[size=2]ke[/size]d up as the "non-religious", and oftentimes more so. This is just drivel, which seems to be par for the course for you.Perhaps you should look into becoming a judge? Oh wait..you're in the military. Eh, hard not to make an assumption there.Also, your drowning yourself in hypocrisy. You "judge" me to be "sad" and "full of pain" and a "counter-productive member of society". You "judge" as "awful" for creating a post in order to degrade people. You "judge" me as closed minded. You are a fu[size=2]ck[/size]ing walking, breathing, typing, shitting contradiction: you are judging all over the place and then condemning someone for judging. Don't confuse my humble opinions for accusations.We are both being judgmental, the only difference is my judgments are well reasoned, well presented and actually have something to do with reality whereas yours are inane assumption wrapped in a steaming pile of contradiction.I like the use of "steaming pile"; poop is always funny.What ideology? Do you just type words at random and hope to make a point? Do you even know what ideology means, now that you've learned how to actually spell it?Ahh running out of gas here I guess..I guess this is a good time to point out that it isn't just religious people that can be idiots.Define what an idiot is exactly. Are you talking those with low IQs? Someone lacking common sense? Someone with the ability to use wikipedia to stuff alot of big words into a post? The name calling is really starting to crush me on the inside.

[Spademan]

Ok, clearly you've given up.Who's next?

[navybuttons]

.

[Sal Paradise]

Spademan, on Friday, May 22nd, 2009, 6:24 PM, said:

I spend my time trying to save lives while you are eating cheet-o's and masturbating to midget porn.

HEY. please stop slandering my religion.

[SuitedAces21]

Sal Paradise, on Saturday, May 23rd, 2009, 7:21 AM, said:

HEY. please stop slandering my religion.

i prefer cheeze its, but its all the same god i think.