I think you are missing the point, the fact is that regardless of who is actually right, people will disagree even after going through your proposed tests of wrongness. When they do, an additional
appeal to what is objectively right isnt going to solve anything. The appeal that must be made is to an objective standard of some kind that functions in spite of peoples feelings about their rightness/wrongness. That way, no one can force their own standard on anyone else based on how convinced they are of the argument. For freedom of speech its the same reason that freedom of religion necessitates the seperation of church and state. Its a safeguard against when the process you are describing fails, and it does often fail. If it didnt, I would agree with you 100%. — DingoJones
The stuff in quotation marks. "There's a definition of blue by measuring the spectrum of light bouncing from that blue pen. The spectrum shows its green. You are wrong, it is green" — Terrapin Station
Ok, I understand all that, it doesnt address the failure of the process that necessitates the exclusion of exactly the kinds of things people call hate speech. You are familiar with the tragedy of the commons? As long as someone is able to ban certain opinions or expression of them, no matter how right they may be, someone will use that power to oppress. The worst atrocities in modern times emerge from this, and thats why free speech is do important. Besides, restricting what opinions people can express doesnt change thise opinions. The KKK wore hoods, they hid. I want my racists and crazies right in the open where I can see them. Shout your hate to the heavens at your discretion, so I know where to start looking when there is a lynching. — DingoJones
colours are not objective measures of anything, but subjective experiences. What is green or not depends on the observer, and this has been proven — DiegoT
I'm done answering these vague questions. — Christoffer
I have read all your previous posts, but I could only bother to clarify one of the errors they contain. — DiegoT
I'm not going to look them up but I understand your argument above. — DingoJones
When you put in the restrictions on speech to prevent people being manipulated by hate speech, you also install the means for others to use those restrictions to suppress whatever speech they choose. — DingoJones
Restricting free speech (to a certain extent, I'm not a free speech absolutist like Terrapin) is about control. — DingoJones
That control might be fine in the hands of someone who truly has everyone's best interest at heart (although I doubt it, as even the best intentioned person can be wrong) but the exact same logic and method can be used by bad actors with other, more nefarious interests at heart and has. — DingoJones
You misunderstand or intentionally misunderstand the method I proposed to make that argument. As I said, the method also makes it impossible for those trying to restrict free speech as a form of power, to be able to control free speech. In what way can a person use my method to do this? Give me an example and we can create a dialectic to improve the method further. — Christoffer
No, it's not. Only if your intention is control. If your intention is to promote well-being for the self and others while keeping the freedom of the individual you measure and calculate the methods according to those parameters. You straw man my argument into a binary idea of restrictions being just about control, nothing of what I said points to it being about control. — Christoffer
You haven't understood a word about the method I described earlier. What you are saying is falling in line of a false dilemma fallacy ignoring the nuances of what I've been saying. — Christoffer
I do not disagree with what you wrote about color perception, it was merely a way to define my point. Maybe crude in its formulation, but it was not specifically about colors and perception, but about deduction. The idea that there is a certain scientific baseline for color and if the perception is way off, there might be something way off with the sensory observation of that color compared to the baseline of human biology. Maybe it was a bad example, but if you read behind the lines, I think the point was about something else entirely. — Christoffer
Now what do you do? — Terrapin Station
...you incredibly seem to be assuming that we're all going to agree if we just, well, whatever aside from simply stipulating that we must agree... — Terrapin Station
Maybe Tom, Dick, or Harry did paw Betsy 10 years ago, but what does that have to do with his job as a faceless functionary at XYZ corporation?
Is there anything that Tom, Dick, or Harry could have done 10 years ago that would matter? — ZhouBoTong
I would think it fair to terminate me based on the implication that I might not work well with other races. — ZhouBoTong
-@Bitter CrankReally, there is something quite neurotic in the obsession some people have with statuary, names, and symbols here and in other countries. That would go for people who feel they owe allegiance to the long-gone Confederacy as well as people who are enraged by seeing the symbol.
- @Bitter CrankI believe in achieving social justice, but social justice isn't about symbols, statuary, and names. It's about the fair distribution of material resources and the opportunity to make desired economic choices and pursue opportunities
I can't find much wrong with your ideas, but I am not quite sold either. — ZhouBoTong
-@Bitter CrankI try to use whatever term people seem to prefer.
- @TogetherTurtlethat is a huge amount of power you are putting in already untrustworthy people.
@TogetherTurtle
I think it important to remember that this "power" does not disappear if we do not give it to government. I prefer to choose to give that "power" to a selected group (that could very well include, dumb or shady people), rather than continue to the play the game of winner take all (until Adam Smith winner take all was accomplished by military power, more recently economic power is the best way to take over) and hope the winner is benevolent.
Violence should not be tolerated under any circumstances
- @TogetherTurtle
Does a bank foreclosing on a family, which leads to homelessness, count as violence? Could there be such a thing as economic violence? Not all definitions of violence include physical force. How about if I call Susie a doo-doo head? Safe to say that people should not be harmed by words, but equally safe to say that people regularly are harmed by words. Is harm violence?
If you can't defend yourself on an even playing field then you deserve to lose.
@TogetherTurtle
I disagree here. I am NOT going to use words like intelligence in this case, because that is a whole 'nother mess. However, if we were to measure all humans by there ability to "defend {them}self on an even playing field", 49% would be below average and therefor they likely DO NOT have the ability to "defend {them}self on an even playing field" (those who are above average would be better at defending themselves). What about children? Or varying levels of upbringing and education? Is a level playing field even remotely possible? - I just noticed you did address the level playing field thing, so just ignore those last couple questions
I understand that we don't always have an even playing field, but perhaps that should be a goal we strive for.
- @TogetherTurtle
Indeed, while reaching it may be impossible, simply striving will have great benefits.
For the sake of everything we hold to be true, we need to challenge everything we hold to be true, because if those ideas don't hold up when they are really challenged, we get to die with them.
I think it important to remember that this "power" does not disappear if we do not give it to government. I prefer to choose to give that "power" to a selected group (that could very well include, dumb or shady people), rather than continue to the play the game of winner take all (until Adam Smith winner take all was accomplished by military power, more recently economic power is the best way to take over) and hope the winner is benevolent.
Does a bank foreclosing on a family, which leads to homelessness, count as violence? Could there be such a thing as economic violence? Not all definitions of violence include physical force. How about if I call Susie a doo-doo head? Safe to say that people should not be harmed by words, but equally safe to say that people regularly are harmed by words. Is harm violence?
Does a bank foreclosing on a family, which leads to homelessness, count as violence? Could there be such a thing as economic violence?
I disagree here. I am NOT going to use words like intelligence in this case, because that is a whole 'nother mess. However, if we were to measure all humans by there ability to "defend {them}self on an even playing field", 49% would be below average and therefor they likely DO NOT have the ability to "defend {them}self on an even playing field" (those who are above average would be better at defending themselves). What about children? Or varying levels of upbringing and education? Is a level playing field even remotely possible? - I just noticed you did address the level playing field thing, so just ignore those last couple questions
However, we are on a philosophy forum. That is who we are. How many of this type of conversation have you had with "normal" people? (sorry on the use of "normal", I can't think of the right word for the 99% of people who can't be bothered to put 5 minutes of thought into this sort of thing) You can see they are actually in pain as their ideas are challenged.
Personally, I only have 1 friend that enjoys critically analyzing their own worldview. Everyone else is just waiting for Fox News, or MSNBC, to validate their opinion. Sorry, bit of a rant. But hopefully the point is made that the vast majority of the population is very unlikely to "challenge everything they hold true." — ZhouBoTong
why does this change when we start talking mental capabilities? — ZhouBoTong
Weren’t our upbringings as similar as possible? I get that as close as possible, still leaves a lot of wiggle room, but I think there are as many mental “gifts” as physical “gifts”. — ZhouBoTong
Agreed. So far, my experience suggests that INTEREST is the single greatest factor in achieving a high mental level in any field. Natural ability matters. Access to resources and upbringing matters. But interest is what separates the all-time greats from the rest of us. — ZhouBoTong
I was actually saying that 49% of adults that DO NOT have learning disabilities, will struggle to defend themselves. Perhaps this will make my point, 90% will also struggle to defend themselves from the top 1%. The mental equivalent of all pro soccer players vs. Messi and Ronaldo. Sure, they have developed their skills to a very high level. Generally speaking, they can defend themselves very well, but when they come up against the champ (not me) – that person who has been reading Kant since age 12 (and for some reason enjoyed it), and it just made sense – they will not be able to keep up (by the way, I count myself as part of that 90% mentally. I can see that I get things quicker than most, but every now and then I meet a really smart person and think there is a bigger gap between they and I, than between me and the average 10 year old). — ZhouBoTong
But what makes us different from them? It can't be biological because both of my parents and my sibling are like that (hilarious, I used the same logic to say the difference can’t be due to upbringing – hmmm, I think we are both right). — ZhouBoTong
I agree, they just need to be interested. Are they? — ZhouBoTong
I hope you are right, but I fear individualism will prevent people from coming together to accomplish great things. Can we act as a group without a massively powerful entity (like government) leading the way? — ZhouBoTong
Well I am still new here, give me time and you may change your mind — ZhouBoTong
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.