• S
    10.7k
    The law I want to protect me is not a law prohibiting some speech, but a law prohibiting laws prohibiting speech.Terrapin Station

    Well, dream on.
  • S
    10.7k
    What qualification do you use--something vague like "harm"?Terrapin Station

    The clue was in my reply.

    Because there are no objective moral values, I basically take the track of "letting people do what they want to do" as much as possible, within reason.
  • NOS4A2
    243


    Well, and anyone can consider anything a harm to themselves, for any reason. So we can't just go with a blanket "harm" criterion. So then it becomes a matter of what someone wants to count versus what they don't want to count, which is really just an excuse to disallow stuff they don't personally like.

    That’s what happens when one applies the harm principle to deeds that are not harmful. Hate speech is just the latest heresy to the latest orthodoxy.
  • S
    10.7k
    How is it a decision or choice if there's only one option?Terrapin Station

    There isn't only one option. I think you need to backtrack and explain yourself properly before directing such loaded questions my way.
  • Isaac
    820
    It's reasoned from my foundationsTerrapin Station

    Then I think this (together with with your rampant sociopathy) is where we are irreconcilable. I just can't understand any foundational principle that's so convoluted. Most people have things like human well-being, getting to heaven, natural order (or what they perceive it to be). They then argue from there what actually constitutes any of those things and how best to achieve them. But to have as ones foundational position as a desire to let everyone do what they want to the maximum extent, even if that makes most people miserable. I just can't get my head around that.

    Still - each to their own. Fortunately people like me (or vaguely like me) outnumber people like you significantly so we can force you to behave with a semblance of human compassion even if you don't want to.
  • S
    10.7k
    It's reasoned from my foundationsTerrapin Station

    Funnily enough, foundations in madness lead to more madness.
  • Isaac
    820
    My speaking surely has consequences for meNOS4A2

    How does your speech have consequences for you. What is the mechanism by which those consequences come about?
  • S
    10.7k
    The law I want to protect me is not a law prohibiting some speech, but a law prohibiting laws prohibiting speech.Terrapin Station

    Just out of curiosity, if an Islamist acolyte of a preacher of hate and violence against infidels murdered those whom you most care about, you'd still see no problem with allowing hate speech? You'd be happy for the preacher to continue his nefarious activities unobstructed by pesky laws?
  • NOS4A2
    243
    Then I think this (together with with your rampant sociopathy) is where we are irreconcilable. I just can't understand any foundational principle that's so convoluted. Most people have things like human well-being, getting to heaven, natural order (or what they perceive it to be). They then argue from there what actually constitutes any of those things and how best to achieve them. But to have as ones foundational position as a desire to let everyone do what they want to the maximum extent, even if that makes most people miserable. I just can't get my head around that.

    Still - each to their own. Fortunately people like me (or vaguely like me) outnumber people like you significantly so we can force you to behave with a semblance of human compassion even if you don't want to.

    It’s not a desire to “let everyone do what he wants”. It’s a desire to oppose state and mob coercion, as is evident by your desire to force us into conformity.
  • NOS4A2
    243


    How does your speech have consequences for you. What is the mechanism by which those consequences come about?

    Like any act I perform it serves a certain purpose.
  • Relativist
    753
    I'm guessing you must think it's bad to inhibit people from doing what they want. Is that it?
    — Relativist

    Yes. Didn't I explicitly say that? I thought I had.
    Terrapin Station
    My point was that we judge whether or not to restrict free speech based on the anticipated consequences, since we agree "objective moral values" don't exist.
  • Isaac
    820
    It’s a desire to oppose state and mob coercion, as is evident by your desire to force us into conformity.NOS4A2

    And by what mechanism is such coercion exercised? If words have no consequences, it can't be words. If the response to someone throwing rocks of a building is "don't go near that building" then it can't be laws - just don't live in that country. So what exactly is the nature of this coercion you disapprove of?
  • Isaac
    820
    Like any act I perform it serves a certain purposeNOS4A2

    How does it serve a purpose? By what mechanism?
  • Necrofantasia
    15
    But how does free speech achieve this if speech acts have no causal effects? How does free speech make people diagnose, improve and correct things, I thought speech was supposed to be incapable of making people do anything?
    Or, to put it another way. If we can rely on the good sense of individuals not to be swayed by hate speech, why can we not rely on the good sense of individuals to diagnose and correct society's problems without needing to be prompted to do so by an opposition rally?
    — Isaac

    Fucking hell.....this is like suggesting you ought to blind yourself because there are traumatic images out there.

    How does actual working vision help you if it has no causal effects? Applying a coloured lens to your glasses is not "causal" to action, but it sure alters how you perceive the world.
    There are different dimensions to information. Isolated data, Data + Context, Data + Context + Repercussions on "greater picture" , etc.
    It's the level of awareness and relevancy and your internal variables that makes you DECIDE to do things.

    Much like you won't dodge a baseball coming at you from a TV screen, but you will if it's face to face.

    That's the problem of academics vs real life, academic research and statistics allows you to isolate variables, but in the process, the fidelity of the picture it has of reality is potentially compromised.

    We are both speaking out of a concern for humanity, I understand this much. Our suggestions are just coloured by different experiences. I KNOW what censoring speech does to a society because I lived it. It is imperceptible until outsiders point out the differences.
    Hell, North Americans barely have any clue of half the things their government gets up to until you get whistleblowers like Snowden. That's why I am very reluctant to anything that gives a government that kind of fundamental power. Ask them to police ideas, and they sure as hell will.

    No. None that I know of. The massive problem with social sciences is that it is almost impossible to properly control for secondary factors. We just cannot (ethically or practically) set up experiments with sufficient control groups to actually demonstrate anything to the level of accuracy expected in other fields. The question I'm interested in (of which this debate is just an example) is what do we do about that. Do we just throw our hands up and say "we might as well just guess"? — Isaac
    I think a large measure of a society's "resistance" to hate speech is anchored in two factors, Upbringing and Education. Hate speech in formative years without proper guidance or alternatives can essentially colour someone's view of the world, because as people grow they become less curious, more reluctant to take in new paradigms.
  • Relativist
    753
    There are no consequences, positive or negative, to speech.NOS4A2
    I disagree. Our world views are largely a consequence of our environment, and speech constitutes a large part of that environment.
  • NOS4A2
    243


    Coercion is the use or threat of using physical violence against someone else's person or property. I say something you don’t like, you punch me in the nose. Your actions are not a consequence of my speech but of your tendency to use coercion.
  • NOS4A2
    243


    I disagree. Our world views are largely a consequence of our environment, and speech constitutes a large part of that environment.

    Then how come my speech isn’t contributing to your world view? It seems to have the opposite effect.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.