Evasion after evasion. It seems that when it comes to discussion you have little faith of the good variety. If you cannot offer anything even vaguely cogent then I'll waste no more time.

You made a claim about "the basic difference about faith in science and faith in religion — Leontiskos

Yes, I did that, so why not attempt to address that instead of pretending that I said something purportedly encapsulated in a nonsense sentence?

Here is the claim again in case you find you have the resources to address it:

If you are asking the difference between science and religion, then I would say science is predominantly evidence-based and religion is wholly faith based — Janus

What I say there is clear. If you think it is not correct, then say why. I'm losing patience.

That last sentence does not even make sense. It looks nothing like what I've been saying. Try pushing your reading skills a bit harder. Or if you are deliberately trying to distort what I've been saying then cut out the sophistic bullshit and try doing some decent reasoning.

I took you to be asking the difference between evidence and faith. If you are asking the difference between science and religion, then I would say science is predominantly evidence-based and religion is wholly faith based

The basic difference is that evidence is observation-based or reason-based whereas faith need not be.

Faith and trust can be synonymous, I think. The same word may have different interpretations or associations. I don't think it matters that much what words we use in pointing out that there is a difference between rational faith and blind faith. That said I'm also fine with using your locution, which is perhaps less prone to confusing some people, and obscuring the difference.

No one believes authorities who they do not believe are credible. Once you recognize this you begin to see why acts of faith are not without evidence (i.e. you begin to consider motives of credibility). — Leontiskos

We all know what the words evidence and faith mean. The question is as to whether one has a rational view of what constitutes evidence. I cannot see any reason to believe that mere scripture, for example, constitutes even historical, let alone say ontological evidence for anything.

Take as example the miracles figures such as Gautama and Christ are believed by some to have performed. The fact that it is said in a scripture that they were performed is not evidence that they were in fact performed.

Linguistically an act of faith or belief does not exclude (1) or (2), nor does either condition "water down" the faith-component of some assent. — Leontiskos

I don't see that we are talking about linguistics, but rather about the logics of different kinds of faith. If we have good reason to think that the authority we are trusting is presenting facts which are based on actual observation and evidence, not mere opinion, then our trusting of such an authority is not merely faith-based but is also a matter of rational inference.

If we have no good reason to think the authority we are trusting is presenting facts which are based on actual observation and evidence then our trusting of that authority would not be merely faith-based. As I see it this puts trusting in authority on a continuum between pure faith or blind faith and faith accompanied by ever-stronger rational support.

This is the basic difference between faith in science and faith in religion. By the way I'm not saying faith in religion is wrong; it is fine for some people, for those who are in need of it for whatever reason, and is no problem provided it is not misunderstood as being fact. To misunderstood articles of faith as facts is the essence of fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is dangerous because it is totally irrational.

then this belief is mixed up with trust in an external authority and thusly is faith-based — Bob Ross

See, you're doing it again. If it is mixed up with trust in authority it may be somewhat faith-based., whereas a belief which is entirely following an authority with no evidence to support such following is simply faith-based. Your thinking on this lacks nuance.

1.93...whining rotter...

The questions, at least some, were ambiguous enough to be difficult to answer without equivocation. All in all a ridiculous test that reveals almost nothing of any use or value.

I was disagrreing with who seemed to be saying that any belief about which we cannot be certain (because it is not self-evident or we have not seen for ourselves) is therefore purely a matter of faith. I suggested to him that framing it that way seems to me too black and white.

Much of what we call our knowledge consists in beliefs which are culturally accepted as facts so there is an element of faith of course. The assumption is that if had the time we could check the sources of such facts ourselves, that we have good reason to accept the findings and observations of experts, of scientists and scholars, and thus have good reason to believe in their truth. So there is also reasoning to the most plausible conclusion in play and such knowledge is not merely faith-based.

In matters where there is no possibility of seeing for oneself the beliefs are entirely faith-based. Especially when there seems no reason to belie e that the pronouncements of authorities, for example religious authorities, are themselves faith-based. So the degree of faith at play in our beliefs is on a spectrum from no faith to pure faith.

Is that the claim you hold to be unfalsifiable? — Leontiskos

I said it is often criticized as being falsifiable and that, for the reasons I gave, it does seem to be unfalsifiable.

By "black and white" I was not referring to text. :roll:

such a critique is not a theodicy. A theodicy is supposed to vindicate God in the face of such a critique. — Leontiskos

Yes, that's right and that is why I pointed out that 'The Hotel Manager Theodicy' is a misnomer.

Racist claims seem unfalsifiable. As far as we can tell they are. I'm just allowing for the possibility that they might be falsifiable. If they are unfalsifiable, then there is no possibility of either logical proof or empirical evidence to disconfirm or confirm them.

My statement that they can have no logical proof or empirical evidence simply follows logically from the assumption that racist claims are unfalsifiable. If they are falsifiable then my claim that they are unfalsifiable would also be falsifiable, in fact it would be false. That's all I'm claiming. I don't think it's a trick.

You ask me to show you an unfalsifiable claim. If a claim can have no logical proof or empirical evidence to support or refute it then it would be unfalsifiable. We can never be one hundred percent sure that particular claims are unfalsifiable, though and that's why I allow for the possibility.

Two well-used examples of what are often characterized as unfalsifiable claims are the Multiple Worlds Interpretation in QM, and the Multiple Worlds hypothesis in cosmogony. They both certainly seem to be unfalsifiable because we have no access to those posited other universes or worlds.

As I said I think the crisis, if there is one, consists in too much meaning, too much choice and too much trivia, coupled with too many looming real-world crises: environmental, military, economic, political and so on.

So yes, I agree there is no crisis of meaning as such, if that is meant to assert that loss of traditional meanings constitute a crisis. I think that idea is arrant nonsense and is also elitist considering the low levels of literacy in the past, and how the masses were in thrall to supposed religious authorities. That is what religion is really about—control.

I never said anything about allowing murder. — NOS4A2

What about inciting people to murder then? Or even inciting them to persecute others? To anticipate a likely objection: you might argue that people make up their own minds what to do, in which case you would be hopelessly naive.

Yet what is it that was supposedly lost?

The god botherers have taken to posting en masse; a symptom of something... but what? — Banno

There are so many problems we now face, and solutions seem to be unlikely because of humanity's incapacity for globally coordinated action. Despair leads to searching for answers somewhere other than in this world, which can seem, given certain mindsets, to offer so few, I guess.

I don't think the crisis is one of a loss of meaning, but rather one of too much meaning, much of it trivial and much of it threatening and what there is of value perhaps seems to those who are after easy explanations like a return to tradition, to take too much effort and discipline and critical thought to pursue.

Which beliefs are matters of faith and which are not, cannot be rendered in black and white terms.

Right there are deistic conceptions of God, such as Spinoza's, whose god is not concerned with humanity, or anything else, at all.

You may be right about a return to Catholicism. Interest in gods or gods does not seem compatible with Buddhism though. I think the real struggle is with the notion that some kind of intellectual insight has been lost in modernity. I don't find that idea remotely supportable—I think it stems from a yearning for the magical, the magical and otherworldly which science, and critical reasoning has shown to be nothing more than superstition.

The huge market for fantasy literature shows that this yearning is still well and truly alive and kicking. I think we all still may enjoy a good fantasy. For some fantasy has apparently supplanted truth.

Like this

The irony with this OP is that the "Hotel Manager" analogy presented is not a theodicy, but a critique. A theodicy is an apologetic.

I see you have no argument, so your only strategy is to question my intellectual honesty. I told you exactly how those claims could be falsified if it were indeed possible to falsify them, and asked if you disagreed and if so, why. How is that intellectual dishonest? The intellectual dishonesty seems to be yours, and I say that because you keep trying to distort what I have been saying.

Also, you say you agree that 2. is falsifiable, and yet won't say how it could be falsified, presumably because there is no imaginable way other than the way I have laid out.

* The logical conclusion of this form of sophistry is that there are no unfalsifiable claims, for every single claim without exception would be falsified if it were falsified and is therefore falsifiable. — Leontiskos

No the logical conclusion is that a claim would be at least possibly if not actually falsifiable if we can imagine how it could be falsified, if we can say what falsification would look like, which is what I have done.

What you are missing is that the general criterion for falsification is the possibility of either empirical evidence or logical self-evidence (as in mathematics, for example). Now it obviously is not logically self-evident that any racist claims are true, so we can rule that out as a possibility. So we are left with the possibility of some new empirical evidence for the claim that some races are superior to others. As far as I can tell it is impossible to imagine how empirical evidence could support a general claim of superiority, even though it might support a contextual claim, for example that some race is generally physically stronger than another. But the problem is that any evidence of particular superiority cannot support a claim of general superiority as far as I can tell.

So, when I said those 3 claims as you set them out could be falsified if definite proof or evidence of superiority could be found I was not claiming that such would be possible. In fact, I don't believe it is possible for the reasons I've outlined, and that impossibility does seem to be logically self-evident to me.

Okay, I did somehow miss your answers...in a bit of a hurry...I know that's no excuse, so apologies seem to be in order.

So, it now seems we are not substantially disagreeing at all...

Saying "Trans women are not women" doesn't fall into this category. — AmadeusD

Here we might disagree somewhat...I agree it doesn't qualify as hate speech, but if someone who is biologically male identifies as a woman and wishes to be treated as such, I think to do so is the decent thing to. What would you lose by that? Or if you find it offensive you could simply have nothing to do with them.

On the other hand, to tell such a person that they should not identify as a women would be bordering on being hateful. and would certainly be unwarrantedly intrusive and grossly impolite.

More than this: I am telling you that is what's already happening, in practice, when we talk about Hate Speech publicly. It is a slippery slope. Yes, there are clear cases. — AmadeusD

None of the rest of what you said is cogent as I see it, so I won't respond to it; I don't like wasting time. I might agree that the criteria that determine what counts as hate speech has been unreasonably extended in some arenas of the social sphere.

However, that is irrelevant to the argument that there are clear examples of hate speech, which in my view, it is right to disallow. Do you disagree with that? You haven't actually answered my questions about whether you would allow the examples I gave and the like.

"Our conflict" seems to me to be that you, on the grounds that some things are unreasonably counted as hate speech and should not therefore be banned, conclude that no hate speech should be banned. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but you have not clearly answered the questions I posed.

1. "There simply are no sound criteria for considering one race to be, tout court, inferior to another." (↪Janus)
2. "No race is, tout court, inferior to another." (my paraphrase)
3. "there is no imaginable evidence for racist claims" (↪Janus)

Since we are talking about falsifiability, what is your opinion? Is (1) falsifiable? Is (2) falsifiable? Is (3) falsifiable? The claims are all laid out in front of us; this should be a simple matter. — Leontiskos

1. would be falsified if sound criteria for considering one race to be, tout court, inferior to another were found. Do you disagree with that? If so, on what grounds?

2. would be falsified if definitive proof or evidence that one race is inferior to another could be found. Do you disagree? If so, why?

3. would be falsified if you could imagine what sound evidence could look like. Do you disagree? If so, on what grounds.

I agree with (2), but I don't think (2) or its mirror contradiction are unfalsifiable. — Leontiskos

It seems you do agree that 2. is falsifiable. So how about you tell me you tell me what such falsification evidence could look like? And then tell why it would not also falsify 1. and 2.

Scientific theories are falsifiable only insofar as their predictions fail to account for observed facts.
— Janus

(Again, this claim is simply false. Accurate theories can still be falsifiable even when they have not been falsified.) — Leontiskos

I've already addressed your misinterpretation of the intended meaning of this sentence. Perhaps it wasn't expressed in the clearest of ways. Why bring it up again?

Well yes, if there is no imaginable evidence for your claim or the racist's claim, then both claims are unfalsifiable, are they not? It seems like you are on the verge of simply admitting that your claim is unfalsifiable, and such an admission would not imply that the racist does not have the same problem. If I just look at the two claims it seems obvious that both claims are unfalsifiable.* — Leontiskos

My claim really just consists in the observation that there is no imaginable evidence for racist claims, and that they should thus be considered to be irrational. If you agree that there is no imaginable evidence for racist claims then why are you continuing to argue with me?

So do people who think misgendering is hate speech and needs to be a criminal offense. — AmadeusD

Misgendering is not clearly hate speech. I don't believe it qualifies as such. It doesn't follow that there are no clear cases of hate speech. You seem to be mounting a "slippery slope" argument.

We don't agree on utterances about animals entirely - those sorts of things are often said as sarcasm etc... — AmadeusD

That's a weak response! What, you think that someone who posted on public forums that th3ewy think it is good to torture animals for fun would be just "being sarcastic'. If you really think that, then it's ridiculous!

I don't think i've said anything that would insinuate this. I didn't mention any type of utterance, for instance. I'd think the answer is 'it depends on the context'. — AmadeusD

I didn't say anything about you insinuating anything. I asked you a question which apparently you don't want to answer. The examples, and others like them, are clear examples of hate speech. The context is the public forum. Do you think such utterances should be allowed on public forums?

I am. But I'm anti nanny-state type legislation. I think those with this view should stop thinking the lowest common denominator is the best way to inform ourselves. — AmadeusD

It has nothing to do with informing ourselves. It has to do with influencing those who are the least informed in ways which are inimical to social life. Why would you not want to prevent such a thing?

We're justifying racist policies. — AmadeusD

I am not; I don't know about you. I'm merely saying that unfairly disadvantaged groups may warrant additional rights.

It depends what your definition of hate speech is, and this is always the problem. I am 100% against any kind of hate speech legislation because (even taking the underlying loadedness of your question as legitimate) no one has that authority. We cannot rely on 'perceived hate' because that's utter bollocks, and so we need an objective measure. — AmadeusD

I think this is disingenuous. Hate speech is readily recognizable. If someone says, referring to a human racial group, "kill all Xs" or "Xs are inferior and should be treated not as human but as animals" or any statement of that kind that is hate speech. Are you saying that such should be allowed on public forums?

I don't think such things should be allowed even in relation to animals. If someone said, for example, "torturing dogs is good fun, we should all do it", or said that about any other animal, I believe that should be banned on public forums too. What you are not allowing for is that there are impressionable people who may be influenced by such hateful propositions.

Scientific theories can only be falsified insofar as their predictions fail to account for observed facts.
— Janus

We are talking about falsifiability, not falsification. Scientific theories can be falsifiable even if they are not falsified. — Leontiskos

"Scientific theories can be falsified insofar" means "scientific theories are falsifiable insofar" so I am talking about falsification. We won't get far if you keep presenting distorted readings of my posts.

Again, in that case it sounds like both you and your interlocutor are making unfalsifiable claims. — Leontiskos

The claim that no evidence for or logical proof of a racist claim is falsifiable if such proof or evidence is possible. It would be falsified if someone produced such empirical evidence or logical proof. The further point is that no such evidence or proof is even imaginable, and I think that's why you keep saying my claim is unfalsifiable. But the fact that no such proof or evidence is imaginable only strengthens my position.

And yes, as I've been discussing with Joshs, this framework can't be neutral in respect to any values whatsoever. — J

This is of course true—the framework cannot be neutral when it comes to fairness, or neutrality, itself. Fairness, or neutrality is a value simply because there cannot be any rational justification for rejecting it.

When you consider that justice is undermined when one person is treated more harshly than another for exactly the same crime or misdemeanor or rewarded more richly than another for the same contribution, it becomes obvious that justice cannot be separated from fairness and the fact that there is no rational justification for privilege.

So, saying that

Justice (like friendship) involves fostering this plurality of autonomies

is the same as saying that one's autonomy is not unconditionally more important than another's, and this is precisely the idea of fairness—that there can be no purely rational justification for considering one's autonomy to take precedence over another's.

That there might be pragmatically conditioned contexts in which, for practical reasons, one's autonomy predominates, as authority say, is a separate issue. Such arrangements are or should be. agreements that are freely entered into by all participants, and if that is not the case that would be unfair, an injustice.

But autonomy is not something that can be bestowed by a distribution of goods or opportunities.

But autonomy is something that can be curtailed by a lack or failure of distribution of goods or opportunities.

Scientific theories are falsifiable only insofar as their predictions fail to account for observed facts.
— Janus

I don't think this is right at all. I think the word "falsified" would make your claim true. It is not only inaccurate theories that are falsifiable. The very best scientific theories are also supposed to be falsifiable. — Leontiskos

I think you are reading what I said in a different way than intended. Scientific theories can only be falsified insofar as their predictions fail to account for observed facts. It means that they are never definitvely falsified, or at least that they can never be definitively falsified is a defensible claim, and if you look at the literature this counter claim to Popper-s idea of falsification has indeed been made.

And again, if one is banking on the burden of proof, then they cannot make the claim that you have made about no races being inferior. — Leontiskos

I'm saying the claim that some races are inferior certainly seems to be unsupportable on the grounds that no one has been able to show any cogent evidence for it, and it seems impossible to imagine what cogent evidence would even look like.

I don't have time to say more right now.

So your response is to say that scientific theories don't need to be falsifiable? That doesn't seem like a promising route. — Leontiskos

You seem to be distorting what I said. I said some think that scientific theories are not falsifiable, I didn't say I endorse that view. Simple observations are definitively falsifiable—you just need to look—you gave the 'flat earth' example. Scientific theories are falsifiable only insofar as their predictions fail to account for observed facts.

My claim is that racists cannot come up with definitive empirical proof that supports their case, and that their case is not logically self-evident. That claim is falsifiable—someone would just need to come up with an empirical or logical proof.

I feel this is the case for most trans people. Their mental states at large, and their reports of same, seem to indicate this. I don't think this is society doing anything wrong. They want to be something they aren't, and that hurts. I am not the greatest singer in the world, and it irks me. — AmadeusD

I don't think it is simple as you are painting it. We all have something of the female and something of the male in us. It's not as black and white as genitalia and bodily sexual characteristics might make it seem. I think you trivialize the desire to identify as other than those biological characteristics indicate by comparing it to being a firefighter. I believe it can be an overwhelming, all-encompassing disposition. In any case are such matters any of our business really? Why does it matter to you?

Separate rights for indigenous groups can be justified
— Janus

I disagree. But in any case, that isn't in issue. The fact that opinion is not socially acceptable is the problem. — AmadeusD

"Separate rights" was not a good way of expressing it. "Additional rights" would have been better. The reason it cannot be a point of public debate is that it is always going to come down to a matter of opinion. If most people think indigenous people should have additional rights, then (hopefully) they will have them and people carping about it will only cause unnecessary social conflict. Does it hurt us so much to give such consideration to those who have been injured? Is it not merely a matter of decency, of bringing into play a respect that had been lacking? It is not socially acceptable to appear nude in public—would you wish to question that?

Liberals, overwhelmingly, do to the point of justifying abuse and violence. This is simply not arguable in the wake of things like BLM, Occupy, assassination attempts etc.. etc.. (this is not to claim other ideologies don't lead here too. It's to say that the claim of 'Liberal' tends this way, currently) — AmadeusD

When it comes to mass demonstrations, things will often get out of hand. Citing assassinations is not apt because they are usually the acts of lone individuals or small groups. Do you really believe that most liberals would condone assassination, even of those they disagree with?

Social restriction of opinion being the absolute bane of a civilised society. And it is. — AmadeusD

So, you would include so-called hate speech as being unnecessary to restrict?

"How could someone, in principle, come up with a logical proof or irrefutable empirical evidence for a claim that contradicts your theory?" His answer is really nothing more than, "If someone falsified it then it would be falsified." Of course. But we are asking how that might be done in principle.

For example, suppose someone proposes the thesis, "The Earth is flat." I then ask, "What could falsify your thesis?" Now consider two answers to that question:

Answer 1: "Go into orbit, take a photograph of the Earth, and if the photograph reveals a sphere then my thesis has been falsified."
Answer 2: "If someone could come up with a logical proof or irrefutable empirical evidence for a non-flat Earth claim."

Do you see how Answer 2 is not an answer to the question at all? — Leontiskos

Of course, a simple claim about the form or other characteristics of an object, in your example, the Earth, can be falsified by an irrefutable observation. Scientific theories are a different kettle of fish. There are those who claim that just as scientific theories can never be definitively confirmed as true, they can never be definitively confirmed as false. So it is not a matter of scientific theories being true or false, but of their being coherent with the observed facts, and useful insofar as what they predict obtains.

So your points actually support the idea that there is no way to confirm or falsify a racist claim since there is no imaginable way to falsify or confirm it because it is simply not amenable to either logical proof or empirical evidence, and that is essentially what I've been saying. It is true that my claim that such is the case is also not falsifiable, but that is simply an observation, which in principle could be falsified if the racist could indeed come up with either a logical proof or definitive empirical evidence to support their racism. But we know they can't do that because it is impossible in principle anyway.

But If i were to, for instance, offer an opinion piece, speak publicly, publish etc.. in a way that received some public review there are several which would result (almost invariably does) in abuse, possible violent abuse, attempts to mar my family, friends and colleagues for associating with me, attempts to end my employment (this one has happened to me twice) among other possible outcomes that are chilling on freedoms to speak): — AmadeusD

That is lamentable, but it does not represent a liberal attitude—quite the reverse. There may be a dividing line between freedom and hate speech which is difficult to accurately define, but I think most reasonable people can recognize the differences even if they cannot fully explain them in a way that is completely immune to disagreement.

- trans women are not women;
- Indigenous thinking is not superior to any other kind of thinking;
- You can be objectively wrong about your beliefs;
- That the Treaty of Waitangi needs some serious legal definition;
- That separate rights for indigenous groups and others is wrong;
- That separate standards of assessment for white people and other groups is wrong;
- That the government is doing good (I don't actually hold this view, but its one which has resulted (before my own eyes) in multiple violent responses);
- Prison is a decent response to recidivist offenders;
- That violent Islamic activity is reprehensible and we should be allowed to assess for it;
- That sexual preferences are in fact, preferences, and I need not care what anyone else thinks;
- Thinking the pronoun debate is ridiculous** — AmadeusD

Has anyone the right to tell another how they should identify gender wise? What would be the motivation for wanting to do that if not some kind of desire to vilify?

I wouldn't say that indigenous thinking is superior to any other kind of thinking as such. It may indeed be superior when it comes to looking after the environment or whatever. But I wouldn't say it is inferior tout court either.

If someone wants to show how your beliefs can be objectively wrong then they would need to do so, not merely assert it.

Separate rights for indigenous groups can be justified on the basis of showing that they have historically been and in some ways continue to be marginalized and disadvantaged.

Your own sexual preferences are indeed your own and nobody else's business as such.

I think in general that we have no right to dictate to others regarding their sexual preferences, religious or political beliefs, gender identification and so on. Why would we even wish to opine on such matters, unless someone wishes to impose their views on us, or seeks to convince us, when it comes to political or religious views (and not sexual preferences or gender identification which I think is obviously an entirely individual matter)? Marginalized minorities are seen as injured parties, and as such, it seems fair that they be given special consideration—why should that not be the case?

Generally the burden of proof is on those who are making extraordinary claims, and I think racism the idea that racism is rationally or empirically supportable is an extraordinary claim.

What could falsify our claim? If someone could come up with a logical proof or irrefutable empirical evidence for a racist claim.

Emotional crises such as grief and depression involve the loss of a sense of purpose. In these states we are plunged into the fog of confusion and chaos. Purpose is bound up with the sense of agency, of being able to act coherently by making sense of events in a consistent way, and this is taken from us in such moods. We lose our compass for action. Even though we are still alive, life loses its salience, relevance and meaning. The specter of physical death pales in comparison to this psychical death of meaning. — Joshs

Grief is usually a temporary loss of compass due to losing something that figured as central to what had been felt to be the meaning of one's life. It doesn't usually causes people to wish to be dead. Nor does depression. As far as I am aware research shows that suicide is most often motivated by an impulse towards seeking attention, proving something or punishing someone. In any case it seems reasonable to think it is usually associated with an extraordinarily intense emotional reaction. Many people are depressed, at least at times, and many more are probably depressed most or even all of the time, and it would seem that only a small percentage of those end their lives.

I think you are being too black and white in your thinking in saying that "life loses all its salience, relevance and meaning". In any case how do you know that is the general case? have you asked all the depressed people in the world?

The specter of death is with all of us, the actuality of impending death not so much.

But here's a question. Let's suppose—as you seem to imply—that claims must be susceptible to empirical data or logic. With that in mind, consider our claim, "There simply are no sound criteria for considering one race to be, tout court, inferior to another." What justifies this claim empirically or logically? — Leontiskos

I think the claim is supported logically by the fact that no purely logical reason for considering races to be inferior or superior seem to be possible. If they were possible, it should be easy enough to find them, or they certainly should have been found by now, and yet they have not been, and seemingly cannot be, found, hence the conclusion that they at least do not seem to be possible.

The same goes for empirical reasons. Even if, contrary to the actual situation we find, some races could be empirically demonstrated to be stronger or smarter in general than others, being stronger or smarter does not logically entail being superior tout court. That humans generally have considered themselves to be superior, tout court rather than just in this or that context, to animals is itself not a rationally defensible view.

This is not what it does in practice. It allows a certain range of opinion. And that, increasingly small. — AmadeusD

What restrictions do you find on your opinions in New Zealand. What opinions would you wish to express and yet find yourself increasingly unable to do so?