Cherry picking is a logical fallacy. I can keep on repeating that if you like. — S

Oh you do.

That's not what I was saying, but as I asked, what would you give as an example of a law that limits speech where speech isn't even necessary for it? — Terrapin Station

I gave an example of a law prohibiting insults. The text might even just refer to "insults" in general and that would include speech.

Surely you're not using "unacceptable" in this context to refer to whether we personally accept something a la believing it or considering it to be true ourselves, are you?I — Terrapin Station

You're conflating warrant/justification for assent to 'X' with X being unacceptable.

No.

I'm using "unacceptable" to refer to thought/belief and/or behaviour that is not acceptable to one; that one does not and/or would not condone, assent to, or agree upon as something that ought be thought, believed, and/or done in whatever situation you choose and/or find yourself in.

Why one does or does not condone thought/belief and/or behaviour is one's moral foundation. That one does is one's moral judgment. The judgment is based upon the foundation.

What sparked this exchange was your claim that - purportedly - on your view there is no such thing as immoral speech. You may not admit to condemning certain thought, belief, and/or behaviour. You may not call any speech act "immoral". There are a slew of them that you would and do find completely unacceptable in certain situations.

If I don't think that this is something that it's possible to be right/wrong about, then obviously I don't think that I'm right. — Terrapin Station

So we agree that it's not right to allow hate speech? We agree that you're not right about that?

So we agree that it's not right to allow hate speech? We agree that you're not right about that? — S

It's neither correct nor incorrect to allow or disallow hate speech. Correct/incorrect is a category error here.

It's neither correct nor incorrect to allow or disallow hate speech. Correct/incorrect is a category error here. — Terrapin Station

It's not a category error. I'm arguing that it's correct to disallow it, meaning I think that it should be disallowed.

It's not a category error. I'm arguing that it's correct to disallow it, meaning I think that it should be disallowed. — S

It's a category error because there is nothing to get correct or incorrect.

It's a category error because there is nothing to get correct or incorrect. — Terrapin Station

It's not a category error because there is something to get correct or incorrect, namely the issue under discussion. I'm correct and you're incorrect.

It's not a category error because there is something to get correct or incorrect, namely the issue under discussion. I'm correct and you're incorrect. — S

What would getting a moral stance correct amount to?

What would getting a moral stance correct amount to? — Terrapin Station

It would amount to some requirement being fulfilled, and the details of that will depend on the who and the what.

So if the requirement to not ban any speech is fulfilled, is that correct?

What am I cherry picking? Repeat it again and you’d be wrong again.

Thought/belief has efficacy. Hate speech consists entirely of statements thereof. Hate speech moves people to war.

That’s just not the case, but very worrying that people say this. If you believe hate speech has efficacy, what are it’s effects on you? War? Hatred?

What am I cherry picking? Repeat it again and you’d be wrong again. — NOS4A2

It's obvious. You're cherry picking the first clause regarding freedom of expression under U.K. law, and deliberately ignoring the second clause. The second clause answers your fallacious criticism without me having to do anything except refer you back to it. I accept the two together. Maybe you accept only the first clause, but if you act as though I accept only the first clause, and point it out to me in isolation, then that is cherry picking.

A man's hate is another man's truth.

So if the requirement to not ban any speech is fulfilled, is that correct? — Terrapin Station

Only in a relativist sense.

Only in a relativist sense. — S

You buy that there's a non-relativist sense?

You buy that there's a non-relativist sense? — Terrapin Station

No.

No. — S

Haha, okay. So how would any ethical stance be incorrect. You simply set a requirement that you then fulfill with your stance.

Haha, okay. So how would any ethical stance be incorrect. You simply set a requirement that you then fulfill with your stance. — Terrapin Station

Easy. Correct and incorrect with regards to morality are only relative, and what's incorrect works in much the same way as what's correct. Why do you think I've been saying that you're incorrect? Obviously, relative to everything I go by, you're very much incorrect. Even though in your wacky world, you're not.

I just parse it as having different preferences than you.

Well I see no good reason to abandon ordinary language terms which come naturally to us. It causes more problems to go around saying that there's no correct or incorrect.

Oh you do. — creativesoul

Not as much as you repeat your crackpot phrases in their entirety thereof.

It's obvious. You're cherry picking the first clause regarding freedom of expression under U.K. law, and deliberately ignoring the second clause. The second clause answers your fallacious criticism without me having to do anything except refer you back to it. I accept the two together. Maybe you accept only the first clause, but if you act as though I accept only the first clause, and point it out to me in isolation, then that is cherry picking.

It was a question. Is it true that you have the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers?

You said it was. I said it wasn’t, and gave the examples proving the opposite. You cannot retweet a limerick mocking a trans person without being investigated. You cannot read Dabiq without getting arrested.

No, you do not have the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.

It's always easiest to make fun... especially when one does not understand what it is that they are making fun of.

It was a question. Is it true that you have the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers?

You said it was. I said it wasn’t, and gave the examples proving the opposite. You cannot retweet a limerick mocking a trans person without being investigated. You cannot read Dabiq without getting arrested.

No, you do not have the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. — NOS4A2

You're still wrong for the same reason as before. See the first and second clause together, instead of cherry picking the first in isolation. Your examples are consistent with the first and second clause.

In Sweden, you will get fined and investigated for hate speech, but also for not deleting the hate speech. Even if you’ve never spoken hate speech you might get arrested for it. The slippery slope gets more slippery,

Landmark case: Swedish court fines man for not deleting hate speech on Facebook

Even if you’ve never spoken hate speech you might get arrested for it. — NOS4A2

That's how law enforcement works everywhere. You don't have to have committed a crime to be arrested.

That's how law enforcement works everywhere. You don't have to have committed a crime to be arrested.

What?

What? — NOS4A2

That's how law enforcement works everywhere. You don't have to have committed a crime to be arrested.