Halloween costumes -- where is the taste line drawn?

Kramodlog · Oct 30, 2013

Morrus said:
Are you trying to censor me?

He is evil. He wants squirrels to take over. Be warned.

Umbran · Oct 31, 2013

goldomark said:
Why the double standard? Why is one bad and one good, why is not always bad.

Because, simply put, they are apples and oranges. The government has police, armies, and jails. All a private concern can do is have you not speak in one particular place or venue (virtual or real-space). The government can shut you up completely and permanently.

Whether it is the guberment that prevents me from saying Putin is naughty or Facebook, it makes no difference.

Says a man who probably doesn't know anyone who has spent time in a gulag.

Which sounds melodrmatic, but is demonstrative of what the Right is supposed to prevent.

If Facebook prevents you for saying Putin is naughty, you can go whine about him on G+, or one of a hundred other social sites. If, for historical example, the Soviet government prevented you from saying something like it, you may not have ever been heard from again. This is a perspective that is often lost on modern Americans, who have had so little restriction on their speech for so long.

False analogy.

Nope. Speech is speech. Private venue is private venue. Unless you want to start splitting hairs over what is allowed where - and I think you'll find that a tangle that won't serve your argument at all, because the lines between private home and private place of business are thin indeed, as are the lines between personal abuse and other forms of speech.

Also, it appears you guys are getting too emotionally invested in a simple discussion, so it would probably be best to just closed the thread down. If you can't handle the topic, you shouldn't be participating in it.

Quick slide to the ad hominem, hm? We say things because we are emotional, so we can be dismissed? I'm afraid that's an obvious and transparent ploy to avoid actually addressing the point. Weak sauce, rhetorically speaking. Got anything better?

Homicidal_Squirrel · Oct 31, 2013

Umbran said:
Quick slide to the ad hominem, hm? We say things because we are emotional, so we can be dismissed? I'm afraid that's an obvious and transparent ploy to avoid actually addressing the point. Weak sauce, rhetorically speaking. Got anything better?

That's not an ad hominem, it's a diagnosis. That'll be $750. Cash or bank money order only, thanks.

trappedslider · Oct 31, 2013

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
That's not an ad hominem, it's a diagnosis. That'll be $750. Cash or bank money order only, thanks.

Can i pay you in bitcoin?

Umbran · Oct 31, 2013

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
That's not an ad hominem, it's a diagnosis. That'll be $750. Cash or bank money order only, thanks.

No, it was ad hominem, now followed by a flippant remark. If we were emotionally engaged, we might react poorly, and not notice the further distraction from the points made in the discussion. Being rational, though, the dodge is obvious. This does not qualify as anything better, rhetorically.

Now I can simply say: Keep it on topic, please. There may still be those who want to discuss the topic of the thread. If you don't, then please leave it be for those who do. Thanks.

mattingly · Oct 31, 2013

I expect to offend several people at the office with my "cyborg ninja pirate Jesus" costume.

--
Dave Mattingly
Christian Gamers Guild

jonesy · Oct 31, 2013

You could try replacing the pirate with something non-criminal, like a cop.

mattingly · Oct 31, 2013

The illustration of "cyborg ninja pirate Jesus" has been floating around the internet for several years. This is my first time dressing as a meme. I also considered "hipster Jesus," who has the Old Testament on vinyl.

--
Dave Mattingly
Christian Gamers Guild

Homicidal_Squirrel · Oct 31, 2013

Umbran said:
No, it was ad hominem, now followed by a flippant remark.

No, it was a diagnosis followed by an explanation that it was a diagnosis.

If we were emotionally engaged, we might react poorly, and not notice the further distraction from the points made in the discussion. Being rational, though, the dodge is obvious. This does not qualify as anything better, rhetorically.

You did. You reacted very poorly to a comment that wasn't aimed at you.

Now I can simply say: Keep it on topic, please. There may still be those who want to discuss the topic of the thread. If you don't, then please leave it be for those who do. Thanks.

Pardon me, Mr. Pot, but Mr. Kettle can't take your call at the moment.