acosn said:
Mr F. said:
acosn said:
Words only carry the meaning and value you give them.
When you're a child and someone calls you names it used to be common place to be told to grow up and ignore it.
Now apparently it needs to be rendered illegal and punishable under the law.
Words carry meaning because words carry meaning. If your claim were true this conversation would be impossible. Words have history, it is what gives these words meaning, you see what I am saying here?
There are countries around the world that have freedom of speech. Pretty good freedom of speech, even if I disagree with it in some cases. Like france, the country that has allowed deliberately inflammatory cartoons which will cause death, those cartoons were allowed. Despite the fact that teh cost to the state will be fantastic, what with closing down embassies and schools, increasing security, you name it. Yet in those countries it is a crime to deny the holocaust. Within the UK it is a crime to use hate speech, to use language that is likely to cause a breach of the peace, stuff like that.
I mean, hell, It is annoying sometimes. But I have had placards taken away from me based on their language (Fuck these cunts and make them pay was considered to be inflammatory) that that is out here in the United Kingdom. You can have freedom of speech and you can limit those freedoms.
In the United States you can be charged for shouting fire in a crowded theater for no reason. In the past it was a crime in the good old US of A to protest against wars (This was revoked, but you get the idea)
Limiting freedoms does NOT make all of those freedoms worthless. It is a part of our society. Everything we do is limited. We are not free. It is a crime to walk around naked, it is a crime (Out there) to use racial slurs or insight racial hatred. These laws are in place to keep a society civilized and, to be totally honest, are the only reason we live within functioning societies.
So, in closing:
You are wrong.
Words have meaning.
Denying this indicates just how much of an idiot you are. I would devolve into slurs to try and prove a point but I really cannot be bothered. This argument is circular. I fucking hate morons who try and state that language does not have meaning.
I'm not wrong, you just utterly misunderstood what I said.
Words have meaning, but you have to physically
give it to them.
Physically and your usage of the word "Give" indicates that there is a concious process in play here. There is not. The moment you look at a word you have read it (Reading is actually the time it takes to comprehend, not the time it takes for your eyes to accept the input). The moment you hear a word it cannot be unheard. Your brain gives these words meaning automatically based on your understanding of the words that you already have.
When a gay person gets called a ****** they do not ponder. They do not think "Huh, he is using a derogatory term with the following conotations" it jumps. It goes strait from ears into comprehension, based on their prior understanding that this is an insult. They do not think "This is an insult". It begins life as an insult and ends life as an insult.
Psychologists do not fully understand the acquistion or language, nor its storage or anything else. We know there are parts of the brain associated with it, that is all. However, this claim that we have to "Give" words meaning is fallacious, the meaning that words have is based on their history. Unless you are inventing new words (And there is a school of thought that if you use a word and the word is understood it constitutes a new word) this is the case. Sure, meanings change (A common, if erronious example, is ****** "But it means a small bundle of sticks, why is that insulting!") but they do so gradually.
You cannot hear an insult and choose for it to no longer be an insult. You can choose how much it affects you. However, unless you are a muslim you cannot understand what an insult to the prophet feels like (As a muslim I cannot) so you cannot cast judgment upon their reaction. Earlier (A few days ago now) I was lsitening to an interview with several muslims in the United Kingdom who were protesting outside of the american embassay against the video. When asked about their reaction, one of them stated that "The connection with the prophet is different from the connection that Christians have with god, it is more emotional, like he is a brother or family member"
Factor this into the debate (Because essentially you are claiming that the people who are getting angry should "Choose" not to be angry). Ignore whether or not you believe the same beliefs but question how you would feel if someone was stating horrendous things about a member of your family or producing cartoons debasing a member of your family.
You would be angry, plain and simple. The insult would jump rationality. Although the video in question was merely the catalyst of the riots, not the cause, this is the reason behind the anger.
tldr;
Words automatically have meaning. You cannot choose whether or not something is insulting, you can simply choose how insulted you are. It is not a logical process. When you consider the emotional relationship that Mulsims have with their prophet you must consider how personal these insults seem.
In short, you are wrong. You do not "Physically" choose the meaning of a word. There is no "Give".