I am looking at the examples you and others have given - which is always of an authoritarian state.You are not looking at how it is used. You are just looking at it's position when a state have become authoritarian. It's not the final state that has the problem with the tolerance paradox, it's the formation of such states: — Christoffer
They did not use free speech to change the perception. They limited opposing viewpoints to change the perception of the population. I guarantee that the idea of Fascism does not have solid logical ground to stand on when there is a level playing field governed by logic and reason.They used the absolute state of freedom of speech to slowly change the perception of the population into a position that later restricted freedom of speech. — Christoffer
Sigh. You're not taking into account everything I have said in my post to you. Like Vera Mont, you fail to put all the pieces together, even when they are all right there in one post - either because you lack the awareness or are being intellectually dishonest.Not true, people can be shown facts and counter-arguments but will still oppose the rational if their conviction of the narrative they've been led to believe is strong enough. Just look at fanatical religion or any debate going on in the modern climate of debates online. Just look at anti-climate science beliefs; have you seen any of them change their mind because of logical, rational and sane scientific counter-arguments being showed to them? — Christoffer
Again, that was not my proposed solution - you know - the part you left out of my post that you are responding to. I said that we need to change the way the media (all media) disseminates information. All these straw-men are wasting my time.Alternative media is no better, it's even worse.
Putting trust in "alternative media" is a clear path to being radicalized in the exact way we're talking
about here. — Christoffer
Now you have to define what intolerance means - and who gets to define it. If you are saying that one part of the political spectrum gets to define what "intolerance" means then you are no different than the fascist you claim to be fighting against. It appears to me that we could imprison many people on these forums for being "intolerant" of other's views and use of words.Or it's simply about the tolerance paradox. To foster a tolerant society that champions freedom of speech, there has to be limits to that freedom which does not tolerate speech that promotes intolerance. — Christoffer
I fail to see your point. Is the ability to question authority and disagree with others a central tenet of free speech or not?Ever heard of fomentation and mob rule? — Janus
In other words, he causes himself to commit the action. — NOS4A2
completely removing the autonomy of the listener — NOS4A2
Do the words swirl around in the head and push a bunch of buttons in the brain? — NOS4A2
The only cause and source of beliefs and emotions is the one who holds them. — NOS4A2
A healthy body of law and regulation depends on moral realism, and in a culture where moral realism is waning the body of law becomes unhealthy. — Leontiskos
Not so, and there's no good evidence for it. — AmadeusD
Then you're simply ignoring the other half, given your objection below this is entirely hollow.
That is, roughly, the point. We do this with mentally incapacitated people. What's the difference in your eyes?
All stimuli do. Words are stimuli. This is obvious biological fact.
Then I guess you can just choose to never be angry, upset, pining or any other uncomfortable emotion then. Nice.
Biden would not be impeached because he spoke, but because he acted in ways that are unconstitutional.If Biden, when he was President, were to have instructed the Department of Justice to arrest his political opponents and hold them in prison without trial, and if they were to then do so, would you place (some) responsibility on Biden, and argue that this warrants impeachment and removal from office (and perhaps also arrest), or would you blame only the individual officers who carry out the instruction? — Michael
You would be punished for conspiracy to commit murder, which is a crime of action, not speech.Should I be punished for hiring a contract killer to kill my spouse? I didn't kill her; I just asked someone else to and promised him money. — Michael
It only persuades the weak-minded and uninformed, which is not a problem of an abundance of free speech, but a lack of it - a problem of how we educate citizens and how the media disseminates information.Many of us believe in free will, and argue against hard determinism, and so deny the claim that speech can have some irresistible, compulsive force on others, but still accept that encouragement and persuasion are very real psychological phenomena, and that speech that encourages or persuades others to engage in (certain) unlawful activity ought itself be unlawful. — Michael
It seems you are confusing actions with speech. — Harry Hindu
How about this example:
If a friend gave you a joint and told you to smoke it and you did, should the friend go to jail for telling you to smoke it, or simply for possession and distribution of an illegal substance? — Harry Hindu
It seems you are confusing actions with speech. — Harry Hindu
I'm pretty sure there would be much more involved than just making sounds with his mouth.Biden isn't physically placing handcuffs on Trump and throwing him in jail; he's only uttered the phrase "Have Trump arrested and thrown in jail" to his Attorney General. — Michael
Again, there is more involved than just making sounds with your mouth. You have to give some money up front, as no contract killer will simply accept your word.I'm only uttering the phrase "I'll give you £1,000 if you kill my wife" to him. — Michael
You missed the point entirely. I never said they should go to jail for smoking it. I was asking if the one telling them to smoke it should go to jail or not?This is not a good example. no one should (and rarely does) go to jail over smoking cannabis and should only be arrested if they have a quantity that is deemed excessive in their possession. you have crafted a hypothetical that works for you. Answer a more serious and mature hypothetical of something that does happen and does ruin lives. — Samlw
What you seem to be saying is that we should arrest people even before they speak. Why wait until they speak? Why not monitor their thoughts and arrest them for their thoughts?A person above the age of 18 speaks to a young teenager (13-15) and slowly over many days and weeks grooms them. Should we wait until the person over 18 does something illegal such as sexually exploit the teen or have the teen sell drugs... or should we enforce the law before the teen is coerced into doing something they shouldn't? — Samlw
What you seem to be saying is that we should arrest people even before they speak. Why wait until they speak? Why not monitor their thoughts and arrest them for their thoughts? — Harry Hindu
What you are describing is not using free speech to groom someone, but a lack of it in not having the ability to question authority and disagree with what is being said. — Harry Hindu
Hiring someone to kill your wife in exchange for cash has a similar component. If you made the exact same request but didn’t exchange any cash, the contract killer wouldn’t kill. The exact same request, but one does not convince. Why? The exchange of money, not the request, is the reason a contract killer would kill your wife. — NOS4A2
The officer’s who carry out arrests due to a superior’s orders have to obey or face repercussion. It’s that dynamic, not the words, that convinces him to follow those orders. — NOS4A2
Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed.The reason why grooming is illegal and it is specifically targeted at older people mistreating minors, is that minors may not know better. Would you really say to a victim of grooming ,"You should of just questioned authority"? — Samlw
You have to give some money up front, as no contract killer will simply accept your word. — Harry Hindu
Why waste time on all these unrealistic assumptions and get to the point of the matter - does free speech involve the capacity to question authority and criticize what others say, or not?Assume one does. I promise John £1,000 if he kills my wife. John then kills my wife. I renege on my promise. Ought I be punished for my wife's murder? — Michael
There's not always the exchange of money, it might only be the promise of money, and surely a promise is just a speech-act? But there might not even be a promise; there might simply be a request of one friend to another. If I beg John to kill my wife, and he does, ought I be punished?
You question the physics of my words inciting you to commit a crime but don't question the physics of some nebulous "dynamic" between me and you inciting you to commit a crime? That doesn't seem very consistent.
Surely if your fear of being punished by me "compels" you to commit a crime then that's entirely the responsibility of you and your psychology.
Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed. — Harry Hindu
Absolutely if my fear of being punished compels me to commit the crime, then that is my responsibility—I could have done otherwise— but you are guilty of something like abusing your position. — NOS4A2
I understood what you were saying. I disagree — AmadeusD
and think the reason you're saying this is disingenuous — AmadeusD
Everyone who is thrown under the bus for a vague association with some group you (and many others - me included, don't get me wrong) have deemed unacceptable. I would, almost surely based on our exchanges, come under some similar description for you (if not, fine, that's what comes across in our exchanges, though). — AmadeusD
Quite frankly, you are not being a reasonable person using phrases like this, and the following line. "No one thinks you're cool" is honestly one of the most ridiculously childish things anyone has ever said to me on this forum. — AmadeusD
The silliness of your position is writ large with the example I gave. Hitler loved dogs, therefore, we should probably demonize people who love dogs - is literally the exact same logical throughline as "anyone who is a free speech absolutist should be demonized because some number of them are POS's" — AmadeusD
Are you 'triggered'? ;) — AmadeusD
Yes, that's right. I dishonestly approach conversations by refusing to even read your posts before commenting. When I do comment, its pure luck that things I say i directly relevant and cause us to continue exchanging. Mhmm, Totally reasonable position.
You are just constantly attacking the person in these exchanges, so I don't care to shy from sarcasm. — AmadeusD
Are you referring to the thorough walls of text I consistently lay out in response to most exchanges I have here? — AmadeusD
I get fed up with others sometimes, and so i become terse or curt. That is exactly how everyone in the world with a brain responds when things are going no where. I simply do not care what your moral assessment of me is. I would expect you to feel the same in reverse. — AmadeusD
When you cannot read clearly, or understand what someone is saying, you will certainly fall back on claims such as this. Common. My posts speak for themselves, though. — AmadeusD
This is in your head. I cannot possibly pretend to take this seriously. — AmadeusD
Your eyes, Christoffer. Yours. And I do not care about your assessment there, because in my eyes, you're doing exactly what you've charged me with. So be it.. — AmadeusD
I've responded to this. — AmadeusD
That you did not get it should have had you asking for clarification — AmadeusD
not attacking me and devolving into an angry teenager because I didn't accept your views. — AmadeusD
You do know that your idols can be wrong, right? Like Popper is probably wrong here? LOL. — AmadeusD
I fully undertsand that you're taking those positions on board and feel they're correct. — AmadeusD
I have no idea how its even vaguely possible that you're having this breakdown in understanding given how direct I was on this point. — AmadeusD
Given I have out-right said that I'm not - at what point would you tell someone to piss off when they wilfully misrepresent you to support insane passages like this: — AmadeusD
??? For me, it's getting very close. This has become an exercise in watching how badly I can be talked past. It is not interesting. So either dispense with the personal garbling in your response, or accept that you wont get replies. — AmadeusD
"free speech absolutism" does not allow for the outcome you want it to. It is a fugazi of discourse about free speech that it leads to intolerance. It is patently untrue. Only force could do this. — AmadeusD
The Germans’ ambivalent relationship to propaganda was also evident in politics: while the Weimar governments displayed uneasiness towards propaganda, the Nazi movement called for its unscrupulous use. In this way, the Nazis not only prepared for the destruction of democracy, but also stood for a different understanding of ‘Germanness’.
Free speech absolutism means no one has the ability to change society on their say-so (i.e using their "speech rights" as it were). The claim made by Popper et al... isn't reasonable in any way. it is a fear-driven expectation that might will overcome the right. But, an absolutely free society (speech-wise) does not have that door open becaues every opposition has the exact same rights. — AmadeusD
if you could, perhaps (and not using Popper as your template) come up with an example where you think this could be relevant, I can get on with that. in the abstract, it is patently false. — AmadeusD
Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices. — Tolerance Paradox
If so, then how do you reconcile that with the notion that free speech is also :Is the ability to question authority and disagree with others a central tenet of free speech or not? — Harry Hindu
You can say ANYTHING with no repercussions — Samlw
↪Harry Hindu
I have just given you an exact example and then you go, "no that doesn't count name another one"?
Of course. It comes down to how you raise your kids. My kids would never be groomed because they would be well-informed.
— Harry Hindu
This is an extremely ignorant view. An intelligent adult would be able to groom your 8 year old child no matter how you much you are going to inform them. Can I also ask what your young child will know about that will be able to protect your child from being groomed, because it is all good telling them don't go in a van but what else are children going to absorb that will prevent this? Please elaborate because I am genuinely curios.
Plus, that is entirely irrelevant and doesn't prove anything. Just because YOUR kids may not be the victims of grooming, what about the actual victims? are they considered miss-informed?
"Yeah sorry you got groomed. Next time, make sure to confront the perpetrator and get more informed" Would this be your advice? Victim blaming 101. — Samlw
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.