It takes urging into action to instigate. Motive alone is not. That's a fact or is fact something inside the box that you don't follow?
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Let's not get ahead of ourselves here, Meclar. Did you just call the definition of a word a fact? You seriously believe that? Words are ideas. They are created to represent thoughts; they are a form of expression. Words are purely man-made, and to say that a word is fact is saying that something man made up is fact. Do you know, that these definitions, these "facts" as you call them, are often changed, lost, forgotten, removed? The words themselves, even, change over time. While I understand what you're trying to say, you're saying it poorly.
Facts, Meclar? Do you know what a fact is? It's a
word, Meclar. If a fact is so inarguable, so absolute, then why does it have more than one definition?
Here's a couple:
1. Knowledge or information
based on real occurrences
Hmm...
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed
Could you demonstrate the existence of an idea for me? Or... does that require perception?
b. A real occurrence; an event
Ooh! I love these. Disprove any occurrence or event anyone can think up, just try it.
c. Something
believed to be true or real
Everything is a belief.
This is irrelevant, Meclar. Here is where you're beginning to attack my relevancy and character, by bringing in these "facts" everybody uses as a tool to put an end to dispute. I've never held a fact in the palm of my hand, Meclar. Never. Do you know why? Think. You can keep arguing that definitions are fact, and revolutions do whatever, and what you believe Rights are, but in the end, you still haven't answered my questions, or made any argument on the subject at hand that I've not addressed back to you that convinces me that your belief is a better way of thinking than my own.
We'll get to the definition of Instigate in a bit...
What did I miss?
You didn't miss it, you dodged it.
Why should any one time be a better time to do the same thing?
I do not consider "Trey and Matt have acknowledge that there was a time when it was appropriate to have images of Muhammad in their cartoons." a valid answer to that question. I was asking
you.
Please make sure you understand the difference between what you think and what you believe. Your sophist tendencies are bunk.
What you think and what you believe are the same thing. Ah, here's the attack on my character and your reasoning against my relevancy. I'm not surprised by this reaction. Perhaps you don't understand, or perhaps I'm terrible at explaining. Either way, I appreciate the compliment. I see nothing in the definition of the term sophist that I dislike. No, not even the one I assume you're using. I won't bother explaining that to you. You'll just blather on about how I am this and that! Fallacy! Oxymoron! Paradox! ...and I'll quickly grow tired of you. That's the event I foresee anyway.
As in, not accurate or factual.
Oh, I see.
2. to urge, provoke, or incite to some action or course
That is taken straight from:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/instigateTo urge: You can be urged to do something by another without them actually doing anything directly or purposefully to you to make you do it. I can have the sudden urge to eat a burrito, I don't have to be hungry! I don't even have to have had one before. Simply knowing that it's food is enough. Had I not known of it's existence, I might not have had the urge.
To provoke: To bring about, incite, induce.... does not require being done on purpose from another. Same as urge. It can bring about an action, but it does not require one. I might find a woman's clothing provocative. Does that require her to purposely provoke me? No. But had she not worn those specific clothes, I might not have been provoked.
To Incite: To urge or prompt to action. Once again does not require being directly or on purpose. Same as urge and provoke. I might be incited to trip somebody walking down an aisle because I think it would be funny. Had they not been walking down the aisle, I might not have been incited.
Do you not see how anything and everything is provocative, especially in the case of the action of another person, even if that action was not intended to provoke you?
The point was, although South Park's episode would undoubtedly provoke people, they are not responsible for the actions of those people, even more so if they didn't intend, or there's no proof of intent, to provoke them.
I am saying that it is complicated as you say yourself but in the same paragraph you express that it is simple and complex, an oxymoron.
So you're saying it can only be complicated, and therefore it can't be simple. That's a rather narrow view, don't you think?
I said something of that. You keep putting words in my mouth and misconstruing or not understanding the context.
I put what you've been saying in my own words and yet you still say that? You never told me what I was wrong. You said that you see respect in defusing conflict rather than instigating it. But what of standing up for freedoms?
Again, I think this is the third time I've said this in this discussion: I'm not saying going silent because of threats but out of respect and what's appropriate. It's another example that you're not comprehending what I'm saying.
And yet, I summed it up for you in my own words which you have yet to say are wrong. Yes yes, I know what you're saying, and I've replied to that by saying it is their freedom and their choice and there's always going be someone who does it and someone who disagrees. Another example that you're not comprehending what I'm saying? I put it in my own words for you, you tell me if I have it right or not.
Go back and read the posts. Again, I'm not advocating trying to please everybody. No one has yet suggested that in this discussion.
I didn't say you were. Should I make the same recommendation?
I only mentioned 'under 18, as a joke and Kevorkian' as example of circumstances. I think the discussion has left us a little defensive.
One such circumstance involved you asking if a father telling his son to leap was a joke. I never said instigating someone was a joke. Do you follow? I do not believe we are being defensive, text allows much room for poor emotional interpretations. My wife's sister once thought I was "yelling" at her over messenger when I was typing normally. I believe it was because she was only used to being scolded over the internet by people who typed correctly. I do not believe this discussion has any content that should make either of us defensive, but if you are defensive about it I'd like to know why. I've not directly insulted you as far as I'm aware. If I have I didn't intend to.
That's basically what I said in the first or second post... We know that South park is for the freedom of speech so that's not at question if they didn't air that episode: "I think it goes without saying that the people behind South Park are for freedom of speech."
Yes, I know what you said, I said that that's a part of what you're saying in my interpretation of your argument. But you're also saying that they didn't need to air that episode to say that, which is right, but they did so anyway because it is their choice. I'm saying, after the retaliation that I would do it again were I in there shoes, as if to send the message that we do not fear threats against us expressing our freedom. I would have done the first one as well. Uncensored, of course.
I question that as seeing your reaction:
Yes, you suggest practicing restraint not "stopping" entirely. God, I know. I was responding to the "defusing conflict" part and my point with those two statements was about responding to the threat, not the act of making the episode in the first place. I've made other comments addressing the restraint issue.
But there have been things that we do agree on. Just because we don't come to those agreements in the same way does not make them disagreements.
When I said I disagree, I was talking about the situation not the other shit. I didn't say I didn't agree with you on anything, just that I don't overall agree on the topic. And don't worry, I'm not saying you said I said that.
