Happiness is the result of positive contrast.

Recently, it's been bitterly cold. Day after day, bone chilling cold. Then the weather broke and the temperature rose to 13'C.

Still pretty cold? Hell, no! It was like the Bahamas.

That's how happiness works.

Fleeting moments of positive contrast.

In what way? You've provided an example of a way of doing so, haven't you? And I even went to the trouble of asking questions which, had you responded to them, might have assisted in disclosing what you think that "right" entails. — Ciceronianus the White

So you wanted answers to those questions? That wasn't just a demonstration that there are a lot of questions? You must really enjoy my writing, because if I'd tried to answer those question I'd still be there now!

But I understand it's difficult to do, though you apparently don't. The consideration of questions which arise in considering possible situations can tell us something of the beliefs of those asked. — Ciceronianus the White

It's utterly easy to do until you try to do it; that's the point.

A: Is that true?
B: Yes, it's true!
C: What do you mean by true?
All: Oh fuck off!

Look here - another long list of questions. Am I on trial? I don't think I'm on trial. Might I be on trial anyway? They are not your proposals. So you are almost certainly not on trial.

Would a student's refusal to attend a class taught by a professor because he/she/whatever is a Marxist (or Objectivist--by which I mean a follower of the L. Ron Hubbard of philosophy, Ayn Rand--or Libertarian, etc.) be an exercise of the HROFS?

Would a professor's insistence on teaching the Marxist (or Objectivist or Libertarian) view of a particular subject be an exercise of the HROFS?

Would a student or professor's refusal to attend a speech by the proponent of a particular ideology be an exercise of the HROFS?

Would a student or professor's non-violent protest of a speech being given a person on campus (you know, "singing songs and a-carrying signs") be an exercise of the HROFS? Would it be a violation of the speaker's HROFS?

Would a university's refusal to invite a person to speak because it disapproves of what that person may be expected to say be a violation of that person's HROFS? — Ciceronianus the White

I plead the fifth!

Is that a HROFS? Discuss!

Instead, why don't we discuss the need for these measures. What is going on in universities that government has to step in to ensure free speech?

damn sight more robust than your uneducated guesswork. — Isaac

Then we've arrived at last at the conclusion of this discussion. If all you've got left in your teeny tiny knacker sack is restatement of an already over-used insult, I take it you're spent.

Meanwhile, John Stuart Mill and John Rawls remain robust! And free speech remains a human right as defined by the UNDHR. It doesn't reflect well on you that you do not embrace these rights, or respect these freedoms. People died for these freedoms. People die for want of these freedoms and you would carelessly dispense with them because someone might be offended. I find you offensive.

If as you say, it's an empirical matter, explain how you would gather such data. — counterpunch

It's not that complicated - sociological research, interviews, questionnaires, measures of equality in segregated communities, historical analysis...there's tons of ways we can gather data. Maybe not very robust data, but a damn sight more robust than your uneducated guesswork. — Isaac

But it is complicated - and not just because sociological investigation is methodologically suspect in the very best of conditions. There would necessarily be an awareness that the data gathered would inform government policy on universities - with regard to freedom of speech, a fundamental human right that - institutionally marxist sociology departments are politically opposed to. The last thing post modernist, politically correct neo marxist left wing academia wants is free speech. They've dedicated the past 60 years to gradually closing it down, and that's who you want to conduct this research?

The argument against the sort of language that is being opposed it that it creates an environment in which the subjects of that language are less free to pursue their lives than they would be in the absence (or at least less pervasive use) of that language. That, for example, someone expressing racist views at a university has the effect of making those views seem more legitimate, which in turn encourages more open expression of those views in people's actions which in turn restricts the liberty of the subjects of those views. This either does happen or it doesn't. Whether it does or doesn't is an empirical matter. — Isaac

I don't see it that way. Firstly because I think free speech is a matter of principle, and cases in which it is at issue need to be judged on merit, on an ongoing basis. The individual circumstances of any particular case make it different from every other. Secondly, I don't expect ensuring free speech means abandoning hate speech legislation. Thirdly, I don't think it's possible to gather objective data on such issues.

If as you say, it's an empirical matter, explain how you would gather such data.

There is no right to not be offended in the declaration of human rights.
— counterpunch

Who said anything about being offended? — Isaac

You didn't say anything. I can only assume what you mean by:

Because ensuring it clashes with many of the other liberties we want to ensure everyone has. — Isaac

OK - I'll ask. Many other liberties? What do you mean by that?

Because ensuring it clashes with many of the other liberties we want to ensure everyone has. — Isaac

There is no right to not be offended in the declaration of human rights.

How do you propose to measure liberty?
— counterpunch

How do you propose to ensure equality of you don't? What would equality mean in an un-quantified variable? — Isaac

I can only take that to mean you have no answer. It's your assertion empirical data is required. I say it's not possible to reliably gather such data. This is a theoretical problem to which we have a ready answer. Ensure everyone has freedom of speech. Why is that a problem for you?

In Rawl's we begin with a veil of ignorance, and it's from behind this veil of ignorance - rational individuals choose the kind of society they want to live in - not knowing what their place in such a system might be. When we argue it all out, and believe me - Rawl's does so in an exhaustive manner, we arrive, inevitably at the principle of equal liberty.

The equal liberty principle is a consequence of the fair rights of each individual, in respect to the fair rights of every other. There's no need for empirical data - that could not in any case be gathered in any reliable way.

Also, I didn't direct you to Peano's axioms. You must be confusing me with someone else...someone who's never even heard of Kurt Godel.

In order to ensure equal liberty you must a) measure the liberty each party has, and b) establish how much liberty the action in question removes/gives to each party. Both are empirical matters. — Isaac

How do you propose to measure liberty?

Again, how to you measure the interests of populations far removed from your own without any empirical information about them?

You're basically just suggesting that you should sit in your ivory tower and pronounce "We shall ban speech A because I've had a bit of think about it and I reckon it will have the effect of removing liberties to too great an extent, but we shall allow speech B because (after a coffee) I had another little think and it seems to me that it won't have that effect". I know this will come as a deep shock to you, but we're all just a bit reluctant to run the world based on effects an uneducated layman reckons might come about... — Isaac

Have you not read John Rawl's A Theory of Justice? Or John Stuart Mill's On Liberty. The principle of greatest equal liberty isn't something I came up with. And it's not a state secret that the politically correct left are "claiming linguistic territory" as a means to power, restricting people's liberties, and undermining academic freedom.

Here's some wikipedia entries you could read, just to give you an idea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_equal_liberty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice#The_greatest_equal_liberty_principle

I don’t know much about the UK education system, so I’m not quite sure what their measures would exactly entail, or how much the government gets to decide curriculum. But I don’t like the idea that universities should be legally required to actively promote free speech for the same reason I don’t think they should be legally required to actively promote Marxism. When the state compels people to promote a certain stance under the threat of sanction we have entered the realm of censorship. — NOS4A2

I understand that free speech is a Constitutional right in the US - and held to be near absolute. Also, I'm led to understand that the US is not a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That's not the case in the UK. The UK does not have a written Constitution, but is a signatory to the UNDHR - at least at present. Until recently, the UK was affiliated with EU human rights instruments, the ECHR. I think that resides in the Council of Europe - and so is outside the EU, but don't know if the UK is still part of the Council of Europe because of brexit. So it's all a bit up in the air.

A British Bill of Rights has been mooted on more than once occasion by this government, and there have been worries about what exactly that means - given that brexit was as crooked as a dog's back leg. Consequently, for me, this determination to protect free speech is a welcome commitment by the brexit government, because it has seemed very much like the walls are closing in of late, sandwiched between radical brexiteers and the even more radical political correctness mongers - it's been a struggle to maintain a centre ground, sane and independent mindset.

On how these measures would play out, all we've heard so far is an intention to impose a legal obligation on universities to ensure they do not stifle freedom of speech and expression. Specific measures are yet to be announced, but it seems unlikely to me government would involve itself in the academic content of university courses, or go so far as to require mandatory free speech training! That would be oppressive, I agree!

Well, just what does it mean to say free speech is a "human right"? Does it mean the state should be prohibited from restricting it? Does it mean that other people should be prohibited from restricting it, by the state? Does it mean that institutions, as opposed to individuals, should be prohibited from restricting it? What would constitute a violation of the human right of free speech? What would be the exercise of the human right of free speech? If we're unable to define a human right we shouldn't insist there is one. — Ciceronianus the White

If we're unable to define a human right we shouldn't insist there is one.

Huh? In what way are we unable to define free speech as a human right? There's a massive literature on the subject. Acquaint yourself with it and you'll have answers to your questions.

For a few reasons, the discussion here could become vague and unproductive. Without the exact context, the current government vs. universities confrontation can easily be framed as a brute political intervention: the government tries to impose its own arbitrary rules on universities and knock down their autonomy.

Also, it may look obvious that it intends to determine the content of applying the freedom of speech. So, could you briefly outline your vision of the actual context of the current collision? Due to the Brexit and the COVID pandemic, the UK would’ve currently experienced an intensification of the spectrum of social and political conflicts. — Number2018

There's nothing arbitrary about free speech. It's a human right, a cornerstone of western civilisation, and fundamental to academic integrity. What academic arguments do universities fear cannot be pursued under the rubric of free speech? I would ask if those are legitimate arguments, and if they are worth pursuing?

You’re right. Cancel culture is a huge problem, and it is forging a generation who fear ideas. I just think there are better ways to defend free speech than let the state violate it. — NOS4A2

Thanks. I wish I could say the same. But I still don't get how the state is violating free speech by protecting it. You say this:

I don’t trust that a “free speech champion” should compel people to advocate for free speech under fear of fine and sanction. That seems to me the opposite of free speech. — NOS4A2

Fair enough, but then you also say this:

And it’s not a question about whether a university ought to give a platform to fools, but weather a university should bend to the pressure of protesters and deny both the rights of a speaker and those who wish to see him. — NOS4A2

Surely these measures are about giving the university a legal obligation to stand up to such protestors demands, and so ensuring freedom of speech. I don't see how that's violating free speech.

You said it was a balance of harms. How do you propose to establish harms if not empirically? Guesswork? Shall we do an augury? I'll get the sheep's entrails... — Isaac

I said the harm principle is a generally accepted limit on free speech, but sought to make clear we were talking about the unambiguous harm of people being trampled to death, because someone screams fire when there is no fire. I did not say it was a balance of harms. You said that, and I do not entirely follow your logic. Assuming reasonable limitations, like shouting fire in a crowded theatre - where is the harm in an equitable right to freedom of speech?

I suggested, that when we argue this out, we will ultimately arrive at the principle of greatest equal liberty as described by John Rawl's in A Theory of Justice. When everyone's interests and rights are taken into account and averaged out, that's what we end up with. So there's no need; even if it were possible - which for all kinds of reasons it isn't - to empirically establish the facts. That's required by what you said - a balance of harms, which is not my idea. It's yours.

My participation begins on page 7. Take a look. you might be surprised at what I say. — creativesoul

Why not post a link? Or better yet, copy and paste the passage, you think would further this discussion. Seem like you're deflecting. You've been called out - and that's precisely what will happen when universities have an obligation to protect free speech. You're not going to be able to get away with this kind of thing anymore.

I know exactly what the lefty jargon term 'white privilege' means - and it is quite dissimilar to its apparent meaning.

Oh dear, yet another white person that does not know what white privilege is, — creativesoul

Rolls eyes. Sighs in condescending manner.

Yeah, get fucked. I know exactly what you think it means, and what it appears to mean. Don't pretend that's an accident. You people are sensitive to the apparent meaning of words - so why use this term?

No, I do not think that you do. If you did, you wouldn't have said the things that you have. — creativesoul

The apparent meaning of the words is offensive to people struggling to make ends meet. My grandfather worked down a coal mine from age 11, and was then conscripted to fight in the war. My father was in construction - and work was intermittent. Sometimes there was money - sometimes none. You coin the term "white privilege" - with no apparent attention paid to the connotations, and in the next breath tell me I can't use the word "blackmail" because it might be offensive? Are you fucking mental?

Oh dear, yet another white person that does not know what white privilege is, nor the benefits of acquiring such knowledge. So many people equate privilege to being wealthy. It's not about being wealthy. — creativesoul

I know exactly what the concept of white privilege is about, but it's not apparent - from the words, is it? The words used don't describe the phenomenon. They are designed to provoke exactly the sort of misapprehension from which you think I suffer, but no. I don't. And I don't need you to give me a lecture on the subject - and no doubt get that warm virtue signalling tingle in your extremities from doing so.

Well, karma's a bitch. — baker

Karma for what?

Are you black by any chance? — baker

No. I'm a straight white male - which is to say, the very last in the politically correct line. Back of the bus with no 'ism' cards to play. I'm not allowed to pursue my interests. I'm not worthy of political representation, because of my skin colour, my sexuality and my gender.

This is simply small town mentality, it has been around for millennia. It just seems more egregious when it's broadcatsed on tv and the internetz. — baker

The concept employed against this man was "white privilege." His name is Lawrence Fox - and the programme was Question Time on BBC One.

The idea of "white privilege" is one of those contorted politically correct concepts, confected to cause offence, to divide people and insight the very racism sentiment it is purportedly intended to address.

The white working class majority who struggle to make ends meet - cannot but be offended by such a concept, but that's precisely the purpose. It's like taking drag queens into primary schools in Birmingham to read to children. These people get off on stuffing their political correctness down other people's throats, and dare them to object - and then decry them as bigoted.

This is a pernicious, post modernist, neo marxist strategy. Everything, in their philosophy is a power game. They have no moral values, recognise no truth, have no belief in progress - all that is a smokescreen to disguise the naked pursuit of power. It is what Orwell warned us about in 1984:

“If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever!”

Did you notice how you just called me a fuckwit, and I didn't take it personally? That's because I know that you don't know me; and get hardly a glimpse of the person I am, or fathom the range of reasons for my views - among the multitudes on this forum. If I have ascribed to you - a motive you in fact don't have, there's really no need to get upset about it.

But I do seem to recall, you made a poor argument on the first page - that seems quite mischievous, and whether deliberately intended to distract attention from discussion of the problem these measures are intending to address, has nonetheless derailed the argument, and burdened me with a fatberg of posts claiming universities will have to give platforms to:

Flat Earthers, propagandists, bullshitters, conspiracy theorists, and purveyors of fake news — unenlightened

Even if there's a problem with:

commercial interests or governments domestic and foreign, or wealthy individuals using donations to influence. — unenlightened

I do not see how that relates to measures intended to protect free speech. Whereas,

"rampant post modernist, neo marxist, politically correct censorship spewing forth from the humanities departments," — unenlightened

...does describe the problem these measures are intended to address.

I know you're a fuckwit. — unenlightened

I wish! But sadly, at present, no fuck and very little wit!

You're openly admitting that it's completely proper to deny a professor the right to freely state the earth is flat. — Hanover

No. I'm not. As I've said several times - freedom of speech does not bypass academic merit.

Upon what principle can a professor deny the earth is flat with impunity, but he can't deny climate change is occurring, that vaccines don't work, that masks don't stop covid, that the 2020 US election was stolen by the Democrats, that life begins at conception, or that there is an organization of rich liberal pedophiles running the world? — Hanover

If a Professor wants to pin any or all of those positions to his resume - he's quite welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't take his class, but...

That is to say, if you're going to deny the right to free speech to those claims you find outlandish, how are you going to define what is outlandish? And how are you going to do this without allowing a political agenda to creep in? — Hanover

In academia there are various measures of success. A full lecture hall, publishing papers and books, peer review, all of which feed into employment prospects, seniority and pay. I'm not about to deny freedom of speech to positions I find outlandish, even if I could. Let's not lose sight of the reality; that government is proposing to protect freedom of speech in universities.

The purpose of life is make good on the struggles of all previous generations, by using what is thereby gained to secure the future for all subsequent generations; to know what's true, and act morally with regard to what's true - to live, to know, to live!

I saw a ghost once. It was on Scooby Doo! Scooby was terrified - tried to run away, and he's pumping his legs but not getting anywhere. All the while the ghost is gaining on him. Suddenly, Scooby seemed to find traction and zoomed off - into a big pile of barrels that collapsed onto the ghost, who was knocked unconscious - which was weird - because it was a ghost, and then Fred and Velma caught up, and pulled the ghosts mask off. Turns out it was the creepy abandoned amusement park janitor all along - trying to scare off property developers. I did not see that coming!

So the proposal is, that because academics are politically biased, politicians should interfere in the freedom of academia to shape it in a more politically unbiased way. Really? Academics are politically biased and politicians not? — unenlightened

No, the proposal is to protect freedom of speech in universities. It's not unreasonable to ask questions about what that means, and how it will be achieved, but the specific measures have not yet been published, so at this stage - we can only really look at the problem. I know you're absolutely desperate to distract attention away from the rampant post modernist, neo marxist, politically correct censorship spewing forth from the humanities departments of universities; but there's no paradox in protecting freedom of speech from those who want to close it down in the name of tolerance.

We already have climate change deniers paraded year after year in the name of free speech all over the media, speaking of political correctness gone mad; and now we are to have it imposed on universities too, because it quite suits Putin to thaw out Siberia and open up his Northern coastline. And it's political, so academics all shut up and listen! — unenlightened

What has protecting freedom of speech in universities got to do with climate change deniers in the media? I should probably say, at this point - that while I'm obsessed with sustainability - the left wing approach is completely wrong. Having less and paying more won't work. There is no limits to resources. Resources are a consequence of the energy available to create them, and so we need massively more energy - not less. Wind and solar are insufficient to meet our needs. They will cost a fortune to install, last 25 years - impose the same costs again, while producing a mountain of tech scrap, and barely take the edge of carbon emissions. To compensate for this inadequacy, dictatorial government would have to undermine living standards with taxes that would fall unequally on the poor who spend a greater proportion of their incomes on energy, food and travel. The rich would hardly feel it. The poor would be crushed. That's a left wing idea of sustainability and you complain that government is mandating free speech?

Freedom imposed by law with legal penalties for not obeying its strictures is tyranny in double-think. — unenlightened

Everything but the kitchen sink!

Which depends on the extent to which it restricts liberty...which is an empirical question about reality (real people having real liberties, actually restricted). Since you've no interest in establishing what is empirically the case, there's little point in pursuing that line is there? — Isaac

There's no need to establish what is, empirically the case. That's the point. It's impossible anyway, because it's a policy about how people conduct themselves in future - not in some small and distorted reflection of the past derived from survey questionnaires by an institutionally marxist sociology department!

Rawl's has done the work for us. If it is justice you seek then, when all the possible permutations of conflicts of interests in justice are settled, they arrive in the end at the principle of equal liberty.

Political correctness is anything but a principle of equal liberty. It's identity politics in reverse - demanding, at the same time that we shouldn't stereotype people, while stereotyping people on the basis of race, gender, sexuality, suggesting that the individuals interests are defined by these arbitrary characteristics - and suggesting that everyone who belongs to an identity group has the same interests, and the same power relations to every member of another identity interest group. It's intellectually inane, hypocritical, and very obviously politically motivated.

Are you not following your own comments? You asked me what I reckon:

So there are limits to free speech. On what grounds? — Isaac

A forgettable remark, admittedly - but you could at least pay attention to what you wrote. Given your question; and given that we both agree that free speech does not imply absolute free speech, it's entirely reasonable for me to ask what you consider to be a reasonable limit on free speech. So, again:

What speech in question? Does the word "blackmail" cause you distress? Because there are calls emanating from universities to censor all words using the term "black" in any negative way, even though the etymology of the word blackmail is Gaelic - bla-ich, and has nothing whatsoever to do with black people. Do you think that a reasonable limit on free speech? — counterpunch

I reckon it is not reasonable, because of the principle of equal liberty.

p.s. I feel obliged to take this opportunity to point out that your previous post was a complete waste of time in that it didn't move the discussion forward one iota. The "stuff I reckon" thing was pretty good, but otherwise, a complete bust. Try and make the next one better.

So why the song and dance about free speech? — Isaac

I think there's probably something to Peter Tatchell's claim that these measures are in some part adopted for political advantage; but the reason insisting on free speech constitutes a political advantage is because, to use the well worn term, political correctness has gone mad. It's false and hypocritical - and seeks to cause division, outrage and distress.

You think the speech in question does not cause sufficient harm, others (in the universities) think it does. — Isaac

What speech in question? Does the word "blackmail" cause you distress? Because there are calls emanating from universities to censor all words using the term "black" in any negative way, even though the etymology of the word blackmail is Gaelic - bla-ich, and has nothing whatsoever to do with black people. Do you think that a reasonable limit on free speech?

On a more practical note, do you think it reasonable to impose the kind of cognitive burden on everyone, required to be aware and conscious of the ever growing mountain of verboten verbiage - lest some delicate little flower be offended?

We can bat these questions around all day, but I'm going to cut to the chase. What it comes down to is this, from Rawls A Theory of Justice:

"Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all."

Imposing an obligation on me not to offend you, is not consistent with the most extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all. Rather, the obligation is on you to grow the fuck up!

I have no particular antipathy toward Hume, but this. He's writing in 1740, a hundred years prior to Darwin. Human evolutionary history is the basis of my argument; such that it makes little sense to me to hark back to constructions of morality not informed by this knowledge. Hume's is/ought dichotomy is a valid question, but how can it conceivably have a valid answer?

"Our moral evaluations of persons and their character traits, on Hume’s positive view, arise from our sentiments. The virtues and vices are those traits the disinterested contemplation of which produces approval and disapproval, respectively, in whoever contemplates the trait, whether the trait’s possessor or another. These moral sentiments are emotions (in the present-day sense of that term) with a unique phenomenological quality, and also with a special set of causes. They are caused by contemplating the person or action to be evaluated without regard to our self-interest, and from a common or general perspective that compensates for certain likely distortions in the observer’s sympathies..."

"Sentiments" is as deep as he can get, because for him, the moral sense as behavioural intelligence ingrained into the organism by millions of years of evolution is an unknown. He cannot know that moral behaviours were an advantage to the individual within the tribe and to the tribe composed of moral individuals - less yet, consider that in relation to the hierarchical nature of the hunter gatherer tribe, and translate all that - via a not quite Nietzschean transvaluation of values, into an explicit form necessary to multi-tribal societies and civilisations. Moral sentiments are for writers of romance fiction.

I suggest you read the conclusion of the section from which you quote. Arguably, he was a strong agnostic - but he certainly did not — Banno

For Hume, I imagine, he believed morality to be God given. — counterpunch

Perhaps not.

Personally I think the government, especially one as censorial as the UK, should not compel universities to promote free speech with the threat of sanction. I believe universities should be able to do what they want. If people need a little safe-space university, where scary ideas are verboten, let them have it. — NOS4A2

I can see some logic in your argument, but you do not acknowledge the problem - which is, to use the crude vernacular: "cancel culture." The idea that cancel culture creates safe spaces is as false as the claim political correctness promotes harmony. Things have never been less safe or less harmonious.

These people are wolves in sheep's clothing - pretending to moral righteousness as a means to power. Handing over universities to this mob of post modernist neo marxist yahoos - would do serious damage to the UK's academic reputation. Freedom of thought and expression are essential to academic freedom.

And then, think of the children - indoctrinated with this insidious dogma in place of an education, inducted into the ranks of a 5th column that despise themselves, are ashamed of their history, and reject the values of the most successful human civilisation yet to have existed.

No.

Hume was an atheist. — Banno

Was he?

"One of the most hotly debated issues arising out of Hume’s philosophy is whether or not he was an atheist. Two methodological and historical caveats should be briefly noted before addressing this question. First, as already noted, many of Hume’s own contemporaries regarded him in these terms. Our own contemporaries have tended to dismiss these claims as coming from religious bigots who did not understand Hume’s philosophy. While there may be some basis for these concerns, this is not true of all of Hume’s early critics (e.g. Thomas Reid) and, even if it were, it would not show that his critics were wrong about this matter. Second, and related to the first point, Hume lived and wrote at a time of severe religious persecution, by both the church and the state. Unorthodox religious views, and more especially any form of open atheism, would certainly provoke strong reactions from the authorities. Caution and subterfuge in these circumstances was essential if difficulties of these kinds were to be avoided. (For this reason it is especially ironic to find religious apologists who confidently read Hume’s professions of orthodoxy as entirely sincere but who never mention the awkward conditions in which he had to express his views.) While conditions of suppression do not themselves prove a writer or thinker such as Hume had a concealed doctrine, this possibility should be seriously and carefully considered."

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#WasHumAth

Seems unlikely, but even if Hume were an atheist, it wouldn't alter my point, which is that Hume probably attributed morality to God - whether extant or as a religious archetype, it was an objective conception of morality - as opposed to the innate moral sense I describe.

The specific measures are yet to be announced. But reason suggests looking first to the nature of the problem - rather than the nature of supposed solutions. I'm going to suggest to you what I suggested to Hanover, which is that you look at the case of Lindsay Shepard. I think it gives a good indication of the oppressive atmosphere that has developed within universities.

I didn't get it, because it's obviously very confused. And I'm happy to leave you alone. — Wayfarer

I'm not at all confused. You are. You have just failed to appreciate a very simple premise after a protracted discussion of my argument. Perhaps if you hadn't been so aggressively averse at every moment of that discussion; had you opened your mind even a little, some of it might have sunk in and you wouldn't be so confused now, about what my argument actually is.

But Hume didn't propose any such idea. He is famous for framing the very is/ought, fact/value dichotomy that is behind the question posed by this thread. — Wayfarer

I fucking well know that Hume posed the question. That's why I mentioned him. I do not disagree with Hume's observation - that people state facts, and then switch to ought mode.

I disagree with Hume's analysis of that observation.

For me, people do this because they are imbued with a moral sense by evolution, and cannot but see the moral implications of facts.

For Hume, I imagine, he believed morality to be God given.

My argument addresses the same question Hume asked, but draws a different conclusion.

How do you not get that?

If you don't get that by now - please leave me alone. You're wasting my time.

Free speech doesn't bypass academic merit. It bypasses politically correct censorship. — counterpunch

So... Universities ought give a platform to fools? I'm at a lose to see what your point is. — Banno

Free speech doesn't bypass academic merit. It bypasses politically correct censorship. — counterpunch

Oh dear, not another one. I'm not going reply to any comment arguing that insisting on free speech implies universities having to entertain flat earthers. It's a disingenuous, and pretty damn stupid argument. In my previous post I suggested you look at the case of Lindsay Shepard. Did you?