A "RIGHT" To NOT Be IGNORED ??

Forums: Freedom Of Speech, Ignore Feature, Philosophy, Ignore, New a2k
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I was taken aback by citizens of this forum
alleging that there exists a "right" to not be ignored.
Someone claimed that it was part of freedom of speech.

I challenge anyone to prove the existence of any such right
or its logically inescapable duty of everyone to listen to anything
that any one has to say.

I don 't expect everyone to be a lawyer,
but something so simple shoud not give rise to so obvious an error;
( yeah, I know: someone will say: " obvious to U not to us " ).

David

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 3,851 • Replies: 25

@OmSigDAVID,

I'm a little taken aback David. Largely because:
a) You're not using bizarre font combinations
b) (and this is the big one) I would have though you would be one of the major people being 'ignored', though that is only my PO.

Who exactly is suggesting the 'right not to be ignored' - I haven't come across that one. Yet.

2 Replies

@hingehead,

once he learns HOW to use too many colors and horrid font size... he will Wink

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Quote:

I'm a little taken aback David. Largely because:
a) You're not using bizarre font combinations

Not YET, anyway.

Quote:

b) (and this is the big one)
I would have though you would be one of the major people being 'ignored',
though that is only my PO.

Whoever chooses to do so
is perfectly within his rights.
I respect those rights.

I don 't want anyone to listen to me against his will.

Quote:

Who exactly is suggesting the 'right not to be ignored' -
I haven't come across that one. Yet.

See remarks directed to Craven concerning changes in the site.

David

0 Replies

@shewolfnm,

Yeah; don 't bet against that,
but u can use the handy ignor feature.

I have not tried that one yet.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

If you want people to know what you're talking about, David, you'll have to provide a link. There are about 6 topics on A2K - which one is it that Craven wrote that in???

1 Reply

@Mame,

I don't remember which thread, either. That was a Hawkeye statement, I'm pretty sure. I did see it. Multiple times. I also saw it answered many times.

2 Replies

@roger,

He was not alone in representing this point of vu.

I am not entirely comfortable in point ing fingers at people,
as a general rule; suffice that some people have alleged that
freedom of speech includes the alleged "right" to not be ignored.

When someone alleges a (dubious) right to exist,
I usually challenge him to prove its existence, showing its origin.

David

0 Replies

@roger,

Here you go:

http://able2know.org/topic/120928-2#post-3359494

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Thank you. This has become a rat's nest of concern to so many people. Sigh.

I'm voting down thread TOPICS, not people. As for PEOPLE, I'm using the Ignore User function.

Voting down threads is not necessarily Personal, people... it's just disinterest in the Topic (for many of us).

Chill out and put your paranoia back in the closet.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Yes, Mr. Gentel. That is the thread and the locus of the allegation.

If this filosofy (philosophy) were correct,
then if someone followed u down the street
talking in your ear, u 'd VIOLATE his rights
if u walked too fast for him to keep up,
and u 'd VIOLATE the rights of any advertizer whose ad u ignored n did not read.

In addition, I will observe that proving the existence
of an alleged right cannot be accomplished by asserting
whether he has ever HEARD of it or not.

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Well done David! Keep posting coherently and you'll have a positive rep by the end of the day!

1 Reply

@OCCOM BILL,

Quote:

Well done David!
Keep posting coherently and you'll have a positive rep by the end of the day!

I doubt THAT, Bill.

My love of personal freedom, individualism, libertarianism and hedonism
will certainly move my rating down however low the system permits
by the popularity voting of authoritarian-collectivists. (Can it get lower than zero ?)

As to coherence,
my purpose in use of different font sizes and of many different colors
was to lend emfasis to ideas that I meant to stress above other ideas
( the equivalent of raising or lowering one 's voice in conversation,
or of using a manual gesture ) or of setting off one idea distinctly from another one
( like using numbered paragrafs, which I have also done ).

However, the intense unpopularity thereof
( with some folks saying that their vision is failing n that I am aggravating
the situation and rendering it more painful ) has moven me to REDUCE
my use of these technuques.

David

0 Replies

Thank you for starting this discussion, David. Very interesting perspective.

1 Reply

@jespah,

Thank u, Jespah

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

I never said that there exists a right to not be ignored. Craven alleged that my objection to the ignore feature is that I think that I have the right to not be ignored, but he is wrong. My objection is based upon health of the community grounds, that minority views tend to be unpopular views, and that a site that caters to popularity does not support minority rights because silencing the minority has been facilitated by Craven. The problem with that is that it hinders good discussion, thus hurting s2k; it makes the minority feel unwelcome thus over time variety in the a2k population will decrease as the different minorities depart thus making s2k weaker; and as the minorities leave and and the minorities who remain are coerced into self censorship in order to not run afoul of the majority uniformity will seep into a2k, thus making it boring and not worth anyone's time.

No where in there was the claim of the right to not be ignored. I don't remember a single other person making such a claim either. This thread is evidence of people not paying attention to the criticisms of the new a2k.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

No where in there was the claim of the right to not be ignored. I don't remember a single other person making such a claim either. This thread is evidence of people not paying attention to the criticisms of the new a2k.

No, you are not paying attention. A few posts above you I linked to agrote making exactly such a claim.

thoke wrote:

"Sure a bunch of people are going to ignore you but their right to do so is much more important than your desire not to be ignored."

What absolute twaddle. A person's right to be heard is more important than another person's right to be ignorant. IGNORing people is IGNORant. Expressing unpopular opinions is incredibly important.

Why have you ruined Able2Know? I haven't heard a satisfactory answer yet.

Ben

A few posts later, he says this:

thoke wrote:

I've never heard of a "right to ignore". I have heard of a right not to be ignored.

hawkeye10 wrote:

This thread is evidence of people not paying attention to the criticisms of the new a2k.

Who's not paying attention here?

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Mr. Gentel makes some good points, Hawkeye.

Please take note that I did not point a finger at U.
I addressed the topic generally,
tho I did acknowledge the accuracy of the posted link.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

it is a good topic, so long as you remove the claim that some a2kers have claimed that this right exists, since none have. I don't know which side i would go with, so I hope that you get a good debate going on the question.

2 Replies

Agrote wrote:

Quote:

I've never heard of a "right to ignore".
I have heard of a right not to be ignored.

This is no way to prove the existence of a right.

Agrote is usually a far better logician than this.
He has usually been meticulously careful in the precision of what he wrote.

David

0 Replies

A "RIGHT" To NOT Be IGNORED ??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know