Home / Community / Forum / Support Area / Poker News /

thoughts in English

Old
Default
thoughts in English - Tue Nov 08, 2011, 12:05 AM
(#1)
Grade b's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,604
ok so i have a question is there such a thing as free speech in the world?

to save some time i say no and rightly so.

Grade b
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 01:29 AM
(#2)
Deleted user
I see why they call you Grade B opening a debate like that!

Freedom of speech is always your choice,I can choose to die for a freedom so it is always my choice if I speak out or stay silent. A coward dies a thousand deaths! I love that line because it reminds you to live and stand up for what you believe in. Right or wrong I respect some one that says what they believe to be right!

Dont twist that into be accepting violent measures but being vocal should never be a crime.
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 01:34 AM
(#3)
hemetdennis's Avatar
Since: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,019
BronzeStar
you cant yell fire at the wrong place
unless there is one


 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 05:49 AM
(#4)
gatehouse999's Avatar
Since: Oct 2010
Posts: 259
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh There watching.
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 06:34 AM
(#5)
Darkman61's Avatar
Since: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,225
BronzeStar
I suggest the name of this thread should be changed to "Thoughts in bad English"

Damn. I just looked in the mirror and I swear I saw Tazz
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 07:39 AM
(#6)
spike8998's Avatar
Since: Apr 2010
Posts: 853
Like me dad once said
"Say what you mean and mean what you say"
Ergo people know where they stand
Free speech ? I think not
Watch out for the gagging orders
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 09:18 AM
(#7)
Grade b's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by hemetdennis View Post
you cant yell fire at the wrong place
unless there is one


+100 this was exactly what i was thinking about.
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 09:23 AM
(#8)
Grade b's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkman61 View Post
I suggest the name of this thread should be changed to "Thoughts in bad English"

Damn. I just looked in the mirror and I swear I saw Tazz
Dear Darkman,

I do apoligie for my poor use of the english language. In my defence i do have to say that i have a quite good excuse. (i also have several poor ones but will not go into that.)

I have a learning disablilty called i'm sure yu have guessed Dyslexia. Normally i use a spell checker but often do not. When i am tired stressed or had a few drinks it is far worse.

I hope that you are still able to understand my meanings but if not please ask me to clarify.

thanks for reading

Grade b
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 12:14 PM
(#9)
JDean's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,145
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grade b View Post
ok so i have a question is there such a thing as free speech in the world?

to save some time i say no and rightly so.

Grade b
Free Speech...first time a philosophical debate has broken out in this forum, cool!

I'd like to weigh in on this Grade B.

Free speech, as a concept, is a nicely lofty sounding statement. It is also something which, in a democracy, is vitally improtant; if you stifle free speech, you stifle dissension, and a democracy quickly devloves into some form of tyranny without it. But is "free speech" an operative concept outside of a "political" setting?

I mean take a family for instance...

Does a Mother and Father do any service to their children by allowing them totally "free speech"? If parents fail to teach their children at least SOME discipline in their speech, won't those children grow up thinking it is ok for them to run around screaming their heads off in a theater during a movie?

What about in a school setting? Does a Grade School or High School teacher do any service to their students if they allow a single student to disrupt the class room through that single student's exercise of totally "free speech"?

Certainly, as the grades advance especially, discussion becomes more and more important to the learning process, and if there is not some latitude allowed for the expression of ideas which may dis-agree with those put forth by the teacher, something is lost. But that latitude would not extend to "off topic" expressions, such as a university student atttempting to espouse political ideas during a psychology class discussion.

So in essence, even if their is an "expectation" of free speech, that expectation should be tempered by the RESPONSIBILITY of the person exercising that "right". Part and parcel of the exercise of "free speech" is the expression of dissension only when that expression has a hope of CHANGING something. If there is no expectation that a person using thier right of "free speech" will effect a change, then their "free speech" is use-less.

In a political realm, the expectation of change is, or should be present, therefore free speech imperatives tend to receive the greatest latitude.

In a family setting, Mom and Dad may be willing to LISTEN to junior when junior says he doesn't like broccoli and not serve it NEXT TIME, but chances are good most moms and dads would tell junior to eat what is on his plate NOW, or tell him he doesn;t have to eat it but that he will get nothing else. If junior chooses to exercise his 'free speech" by screaming and crying in a grocery store for no good reason chance are he will be told to shut up, and maybe receive some form of parental discipline. It is the difference between junior screaming and yelling for a reason such as he is hurt, or because he wants a candy bar; in one case mom or dad will act to change the hurt, but will probably NOT act the way junior would like because to mom's and dad's no usually means NO.

In a school setting, again for "free speech imperatives" to be valid, the exercise of free speech must have a valid PURPOSE in order for it to be anything but a distraction from the larger overall "goal" of learning. A Teacher is un-likely to brook random shouting by a studnet, no matter what that student says about his "right of free speech". If there is an open discussion period, then "on topic" expressions would likely be allowed, even if they dis-agree with the lessons or the thoughts/ideas of the teacher. But if the student who mistakenly believes his "free speech" means he is entitled to un-limited expression of any thought or idea which pops into his head just BECAUSE it is an open discussion period, is apt to find his random and distracting comments dis-missed, and eventually silenced. If any other course of action is taken by the teacher, the teacher is failing to do service to the overall GOAL of learning.

So in the end, whether or not there is an imperative to allow totally free speech is largely dependant upon the over riding GOAL of a particular human inter-action.

Many times, there exists a "power entitity" (Parents, Teachers) which is charged with the responsibility of guiding a group toward the goal.

That "power entity" then exercises ultimate "control" over speech. While in most cases latitude will be allowed for dissenting voices to be heard, If those dissenting voices CEASE to have any valid expectation that through the exercise of their "free speech" rights they can effect CHANGE, their "free speech" becomes a distraction from the overall goal, and the "power entity" will tend to act to curb "free speech".

This action by the "power entity" however, becomes UN-NECESSARY if the person expressing themselves recognizes that their ability to effect a desired change is gone, and if that person acts RESPONSIBLY toward the mutual goal, and curbs their own speech.

A child may well ask for a candy bar, and when mom says "no", he may even scream and fuss a bit. But mom (the power entity) is serving the over-riding "goal" of seeing to junior's overall health by saying no to his desire for a candy bar. If junior recognizes that when mom says no, she means no, there is no need for junior to receive a spanking (or a "time out" for those who do not believe in corporal punishment! ).

A teacher may well encourage "open discussion", but that discussion would still be for the purpose of serving a "goal"; the goal of learning (or of assessing what the students HAVE learned, or whatever). If the teacher allows a single student to DISTRACT the discussion from the overall goal, then the teacher ("the power entity") must assess the REASONS the distracting student has for veering off-topic. If the teacher determines that the reasons do not serve the overall goal, the teacher has a RESPONSIBILITY to halt the exercise of "free speech".

The student who wants to rattle on about Marx-ism during an open discussion on Abortion (for instance), has the responsibility to recognize when his "free speech" is no loger serving the overall goal. This happens when he no longer has the ability to effect "change", either in the thinking of his listeners, or in the overall course of the discussion (people will tend to stop listening to someone "ranting" off topic). Or at least it should...

It becomes the student's RESPONSIBILITY to curb his own actions before the teacher must do so, to serve the overall goal. If the student refuses to do that, all his whining and moaning about "free speech" is useless. His ability to effect CHANGE is gone, or it has moved too far a-field from the group goal. If he persists in whining aobut his lack of 'free speech", he is serving a SELFISH GOAL, that of stroking his own ego. Afterall, chances are pretty good that no one is going to listen to a Universisty student who cannot "let it go" in a non political class, and become a Marx-ist, right?

If the student does not recognize that, then he should not really be "surprised" that the teacher realizes it, and acts to curb his speech FOR HIM.

So...

There is free speech. But that free speech carries with it RESPONSIBILITY.

That responsibility comes in the form of recognizng a shared goal in a group activity.

In some cases (like when there is someone un-able to judge responsible behavior for themselves, like a child, or a techer who is being paid to teach a subject), there will tend to be a "power entity" who has overall responsibility for maintaining the group goal.

This power entity has the responsibility to act to "re-track" a person who has moved beyond the group goal with his "free speech" usage, and has become distracting to the overall goal. This exercise by the "power entity" is not REQUIRED though, if the person who has moved beyond any benefit to the GROUP with his expressions recognizes fo himself that he is "off-topic"; when he sees that his ability to effect a desired change is gone, he will stop his dissension if he is acting in the "best interests" of the entire group.

In a political arena, the ability to effect change is RARELY ever truly "gone". That means the validity of free speech and dissenting voices rarely ever lose validity. That means "free speech" and dissension often becomes VITAL to the proper function of a democrtaic type government.

But outside of a governmental setting, when the goals are not as far reaching, the "need" for no limits on speech, whether self imposed or imposed from the outside, is far less common. In those goal oriented human endeavours, totally "free speech" can actually serve to act COUNTER to the overall goal.

It takes each of us to recognize and accept the goal, and it takes each of us to see when we may have moved beyond any ability to effect the change we desire with our exercise of free speech, to avoid haivng that free speech limited FOR US by an outside entity in service of the goal. If we see inside our motives for exercising free speech, and if we see that we might be HURTING the overall goal with our speech, we can curb our own actions.

If we fail to see these things, if we fail to curb our own actions, we have no "right" to feel shock or dismay when our actions are curbed for us.

Last edited by JDean; Tue Nov 08, 2011 at 12:23 PM..
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 12:48 PM
(#10)
Darkman61's Avatar
Since: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,225
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grade b View Post
Dear Darkman,

I do apoligie for my poor use of the english language. In my defence i do have to say that i have a quite good excuse. (i also have several poor ones but will not go into that.)

I have a learning disablilty called i'm sure yu have guessed Dyslexia. Normally i use a spell checker but often do not. When i am tired stressed or had a few drinks it is far worse.

I hope that you are still able to understand my meanings but if not please ask me to clarify.

thanks for reading

Grade b
Dear Grade b,

You have my sympathy. Not because of your dyslexia, as some of the most successful people I know are also sufferers. More because yours also appears to come with an inability to laugh. Now I appreciate that this condition has probably caused you to be "laughed at" more often than you would like, but that wasn't actually what I was doing here. If you knew Tazz you might have got the joke, but I guess you don't.

Rest assured that I will do my best to ensure that you're aware of the bigger picture before I use you as an accessory in future
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 01:40 PM
(#11)
Grade b's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,604
Dear Darkman,

believe me i have no problem at being able to laugh at my self.

the attempt at being formal was meant to be the attempt to poke fun at myself.

I take no offence what so ever, over my spelling or english.

(i guess the joke was funnier in my head but there you go.)

Grade b
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 01:53 PM
(#12)
btwnthe00's Avatar
Since: Oct 2011
Posts: 4
General Forum
General Forum for posting multiple topics, of a general poker nature.

Read more: Members Talk - PokerSchoolOnline Forum http://www.pokerschoolonline.com/for...#ixzz1d8pbr0dT



Also yes there is. Im not going into it.
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 02:25 PM
(#13)
Darkman61's Avatar
Since: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,225
BronzeStar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grade b View Post
Dear Darkman,

believe me i have no problem at being able to laugh at my self.

the attempt at being formal was meant to be the attempt to poke fun at myself.

I take no offence what so ever, over my spelling or english.

(i guess the joke was funnier in my head but there you go.)

Grade b
Ah. Good. We know each other now
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 02:50 PM
(#14)
Grade b's Avatar
Since: Jun 2010
Posts: 3,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by btwnthe00 View Post
General Forum
General Forum for posting multiple topics, of a general poker nature.

Read more: Members Talk - PokerSchoolOnline Forum http://www.pokerschoolonline.com/for...#ixzz1d8pbr0dT



Also yes there is. Im not going into it.
Please accept the unwritten part of my first post in this topic to include the phrase and think about how it applies to these poker forums.
 
Old
Default
Tue Nov 08, 2011, 04:47 PM
(#15)
Moxie Pip's Avatar
Since: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grade b View Post
Please accept the unwritten part of my first post in this topic to include the phrase and think about how it applies to these poker forums.

This poker forum is part of a corporate entity and NOT a branch of any government and you agree to participate here within their T.O.S. and their auspices so no,there is technically no freedom of speech here. Nor should you expect there to be as none was ever promised.

I'm like cookies,I'm gonna say what I have to say if I see something I have a problem with and if the cost of doing that is a smackdown from the Mods then so be it. But I'm not going to step over the line and then complain that rights I don't have,within this forum,were violated.

And though I don't agree with them all the time I think for the most part,in fact the vast majority of the time,the Mods do a good job and are even-handed. In a completely thankless job for the American ones at this point BTW.
 

Getting PokerStars is easy: download and install the PokerStars game software, create your free player account, and validate your email address. Clicking on the download poker button will lead to the installation of compatible poker software on your PC of 51.7 MB, which will enable you to register and play poker on the PokerStars platform. To uninstall PokerStars use the Windows uninstaller: click Start > Control Panel and then select Add or Remove programs > Select PokerStars and click Uninstall or Remove.

Copyright (c) PokerSchoolOnline.com. All rights reserved, Rational Group, Douglas Bay Complex, King Edward Road, Onchan, Isle of Man, IM3 1DZ. You can email us on support@pokerschoolonline.com