|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 09/12/2010 : 16:33:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Originally posted by Dude
Dave_W said:
| It's fine for private citizens to say anything they like. It's not okay for anyone in the government to suggest that any sort of expression is "a bad idea," unless it's actually illegal. The government isn't supposed to be in the business of choosing moral paths for us. |
Yeah. The point I was trying to get across to Kil is when people tell other people to shut up, when it is clear they don't have to shut up, it runs counter to the concept of free speech. It is obviously the right of any private citizen to tell anyone else to shut up, it's just hypocritical to use your right of speech to tell another to not use theirs.
|
Sorry, but that is hogwash. If anyones has the right to free speech, it is also anyones right to tell someone else that maybe his speech might not be a good idea.
Stating otherwise becomes logically contradictory. You are basically telling me that I should shut up about my idea that someone else should shut up.
|
You are missing my point Tom. You can tell them it isn't a good idea as often and as much as you want and I don't have any problem with it. I only have a problem when you move from saying it's a bad idea to telling a person they should not speak because it's a bad idea (or whatever other reason). We have it codified in law that the government can't interfere with your right to speak and in order to avoid hypocrisy we (private citizens) should, even though we are not legally obligated, follow that same example.
So it goes like this:
Acceptable-
Hey, Jones, it may be a bad idea to burn a quran, it might provoke violent responses against our troops overseas.
Not acceptable-
hey, Jones, it may be a bad idea to burn a quran, it might provoke violence against our troops, therefore you shouldn't do it.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2010 : 17:35:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Not acceptable-
hey, Jones, it may be a bad idea to burn a quran, it might provoke violence against our troops, therefore you shouldn't do it.
|
Dude, putting "may be" and "might" in there makes the statement completely vacuous (i.e. worthless). If you replace "may be" with "is" (or perhaps weaker: "seems like") and "might" with "is likely to", then at least the statement has meaning. And in this case, I believe the "therefore you shouldn't do it" is implied even if you don't say it.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see the difference between what you find acceptable and not acceptable.
|
Bingo! |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2010 : 21:26:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Not acceptable-
hey, Jones, it may be a bad idea to burn a quran, it might provoke violence against our troops, therefore you shouldn't do it.
|
Dude, putting "may be" and "might" in there makes the statement completely vacuous (i.e. worthless). If you replace "may be" with "is" (or perhaps weaker: "seems like") and "might" with "is likely to", then at least the statement has meaning. And in this case, I believe the "therefore you shouldn't do it" is implied even if you don't say it.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see the difference between what you find acceptable and not acceptable.
|
Awwww shit! It's the tone debate all over again! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2010 : 22:05:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Awwww shit! It's the tone debate all over again! |
I couldn't help notice some parallels.
And once again, I wind up on the "it's okay to be a dick sometimes" side. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2010 : 22:43:17 [Permalink]
|
Pal MD gets a whole bunch of stuff wrong:If I become afraid to practice my religion because of violent bigotry, I'm less free. If you become afraid to practice your religion because someone does nothing more than burn some copies of your religion's sacred texts, you need to grow a spine. Burning books is a non-violent protest.Whether or not you think it appropriate, people imbue objects with meaning. Why else try to save your house from burning down? You have insurance, don’t you? But most people don’t want to lose a house and the objects it contains because they have meaning. No, most people don't want to lose a house because dealing with the insurance company and new lodgings is a huge pain in the ass. Consideration of the objects contained therein is generally secondary.It's appropriate to call out people on harmful beliefs, to criticize Catholic beliefs about homosexuality, Torah passages about rape, Koran suras about violence. But collecting and burning religious texts is not simple criticism, it is an attack on the people who hold these texts dear, no matter how irrational they are. Utter nonsense. Collecting and burning religious texts is an attack on the ideas contained within them, not an attack on the people who own other copies. To a believer, is it more or less disrespectful to burn a Bible than it is to say that taking Genesis literally is the pinnacle of stupid? I submit they're identical.
Since Pal MD's piece was an open letter, its addressee (PZ Myers) has some thoughts (mostly right), too.
PZ includes a link to this article, about a call from an Islamic group for the UN to outlaw "religious defamation" worldwide. What a horrific idea. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2010 : 22:47:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Not acceptable-
hey, Jones, it may be a bad idea to burn a quran, it might provoke violence against our troops, therefore you shouldn't do it.
|
Dude, putting "may be" and "might" in there makes the statement completely vacuous (i.e. worthless). If you replace "may be" with "is" (or perhaps weaker: "seems like") and "might" with "is likely to", then at least the statement has meaning. And in this case, I believe the "therefore you shouldn't do it" is implied even if you don't say it.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see the difference between what you find acceptable and not acceptable.
|
Because the specific example isn't a good one, because this is not an issue with simply defined parameters, and because it's difficult to articulate in a couple of paragraphs. I'll try to simplify it to the point even Kil will understand...
X is a statement or action that is considered protected speech. I declare my intent to say(or do, I'll just use "say" for the rest of this for simplicity) X on a given date.
You take issue with X. Whatever that issue might be, some perceived threat that X could provoke, X contains false information, X is offensive to you, whatever.
You can criticize X, you can criticize me for saying X.
My problem arises when the criticism of X or me includes you saying that I should not say X. Kil's assertion that criticism of X is equal to a call for silence is wrong.
Obviously the concept of free speech is complicated and nuanced and there are exceptions to many aspects.
But.... If it is wrong when the government acts to suppress free speech, why isn't the equivalent action from you (in the form of demanding silence) also wrong? Yes, it's illegal for the government to do it, and not illegal for you to do it, but I don't see an ethical difference between government suppression of speech and you calling for it, just a difference in magnitude.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2010 : 23:07:09 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
I'll try to simplify it to the point even Kil will understand... |
Well thank you for that. But you are mistaken. I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/12/2010 : 23:24:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Dude:
I'll try to simplify it to the point even Kil will understand... |
Well thank you for that. But you are mistaken. I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree.
|
What, specifically then, about this: But.... If it is wrong when the government acts to suppress free speech, why isn't the equivalent action from you (in the form of demanding silence) also wrong? Yes, it's illegal for the government to do it, and not illegal for you to do it, but I don't see an ethical difference between government suppression of speech and you calling for it, just a difference in magnitude.
|
do you disagree with, and why?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 09/12/2010 23:25:12 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 00:25:45 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
...do you disagree with, and why? |
The government suppression of speech is prohibited, and rightly so. But my trying to persuade someone to not say something doesn't happen without some thought behind it. And that thought, as well as my most persuasive argument simply can't suppress speech. It also shouldn't be suppressed. And I am allowed to deliver my most persuasive argument in favor of some fool not saying something really stupid or possibly dangerous, or both, because I too am playing to a larger crowd. I can't actually stop the person from saying anything, which makes all the difference in the world.
Trying to convince someone to not say something, short of actually demanding it, because we can't, and rightly so, can be exactly the proper response in protest of a protest. When we are talking about a character like Fred Phelps,for example, we don't really have the option of a formal debate. Our only options are to ignore him, go home and write an op ed piece or a letter to the editor, or confront him. And when we are confronting him, no matter how nicely or harshly we put it, we are trying to get him to cut it out. We really are trying to get him to stop saying stupid shit at a funeral where a dead solders family just might be trying to pay their final respects to a loved one.
Where I think you go wrong is that you don't consider the thought behind the counter protestations as equal to and as valid as the protesters speech, or you don't seem to because you want me to limit my speech, or at least call me ethically challenged for stating my mind, whereas I see it as the flip side of the same protected coin, and ethically equivalent if not morally superior. (Of course, the morally superior part is not a given...) |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 01:57:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
You are missing my point Tom. You can tell them it isn't a good idea as often and as much as you want and I don't have any problem with it. I only have a problem when you move from saying it's a bad idea to telling a person they should not speak because it's a bad idea (or whatever other reason). We have it codified in law that the government can't interfere with your right to speak and in order to avoid hypocrisy we (private citizens) should, even though we are not legally obligated, follow that same example.
So it goes like this:
Acceptable-
Hey, Jones, it may be a bad idea to burn a quran, it might provoke violent responses against our troops overseas.
Not acceptable-
hey, Jones, it may be a bad idea to burn a quran, it might provoke violence against our troops, therefore you shouldn't do it.
|
And the actual difference between the two is? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 02:11:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Because the specific example isn't a good one, because this is not an issue with simply defined parameters, and because it's difficult to articulate in a couple of paragraphs. I'll try to simplify it to the point even Kil will understand...
X is a statement or action that is considered protected speech. I declare my intent to say(or do, I'll just use "say" for the rest of this for simplicity) X on a given date.
You take issue with X. Whatever that issue might be, some perceived threat that X could provoke, X contains false information, X is offensive to you, whatever.
You can criticize X, you can criticize me for saying X.
My problem arises when the criticism of X or me includes you saying that I should not say X. Kil's assertion that criticism of X is equal to a call for silence is wrong. |
No, his criticism is exactly correct, because the point in this case is that someone thinks act X is a bad idea. Criticizing act X therefore becomes equal to saying act X should not be done.
Obviously the concept of free speech is complicated and nuanced and there are exceptions to many aspects.
But.... If it is wrong when the government acts to suppress free speech, why isn't the equivalent action from you (in the form of demanding silence) also wrong? Yes, it's illegal for the government to do it, and not illegal for you to do it, but I don't see an ethical difference between government suppression of speech and you calling for it, just a difference in magnitude.
|
Because the government is not an individual. Because if the point of free speech is the free expression of ideas, restraint in what you say or do not say is one of those ideas and therefore should be heard. The person addressed can than decide for themselves whether they agree with this idea. They can let themselves be persuaded or not, and act on that.
This is not the case with the government prohibiting certain speech. There, the person concerned can not make up his own mind on whether he should say something or not. Rather, he is forced into silence.
Hearing the arguments and deciding to be silent yourself if you agree with that argument, and being forced to silence whether you agree with it or not. That is the fundamental difference between the two and the fundamental reason why it is wrong for the government to shut me up, but right for you to tell me to shut up. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 08:26:38 [Permalink]
|
Let me ask you this then (Kil and Tom).
What is the reason why we decided to prevent government from being able to suppress speech? (speech for this means only what we consider protected speech)
Just because the government would have the power to act is not the reason. It's because we decided that the civil liberty of speech was something we valued, realized that we couldn't have true freedom of thought and action if there was a way for anyone to prevent us from being able to speak. I may be a bit Kantian here, but I do not see an ethical difference between you calling for it and the government doing it.
tom said:
| Hearing the arguments and deciding to be silent yourself if you agree with that argument, and being forced to silence whether you agree with it or not. That is the fundamental difference between the two and the fundamental reason why it is wrong for the government to shut me up, but right for you to tell me to shut up. |
So what if 10 people show up when I decide to say X, and they demand I don't. What if 100 or 1000 show up. They aren't the government but they certainly have the power to intimidate. At the very least it's going to cause me to think about my personal safety if I decide to go ahead and say X. The only difference between one person and 1000 is magnitude.
Kil said:
| When we are talking about a character like Fred Phelps,for example, we don't really have the option of a formal debate. Our only options are to ignore him, go home and write an op ed piece or a letter to the editor, or confront him. And when we are confronting him, no matter how nicely or harshly we put it, we are trying to get him to cut it out. We really are trying to get him to stop saying stupid shit at a funeral where a dead solders family just might be trying to pay their final respects to a loved one. |
(bolding mine)
Sure. And there is plenty of legal precedent for limiting protests to certain areas, requiring permits for assembly, and the like. None of which involves calling for the protesters to be silent.
| Where I think you go wrong is that you don't consider the thought behind the counter protestations as ethically valid as the protesters speech, or you don't seem to because you want to limit their speech, or at least call them ethically challenged, whereas I see it as the flip side of the same protected coin, and ethically equivalent if not morally superior. (Of course, the morally superior part is not a given...) |
No. I don't see an equivalence between criticism of ideas/sentiment and telling people to shut up. When you actually tell a person to shut up (like so many people have done with this lunatic here in FL) I think its a bridge too far. Especially when the call for silence is based on some ephemeral threat of possible retaliation that no one can support with a shred of evidence.
I think the significant difference between our thinking here is that you see an equivalence between criticism and calling for silence where I see those as distinctly different things.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 08:58:04 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
They aren't the government but they certainly have the power to intimidate. At the very least it's going to cause me to think about my personal safety if I decide to go ahead and say X. |
Emphasis mine.
There's the point, isn't it. As long as 1000 people gather to say "shut the fuck up" they are expressing their opinion. Once they start being intimidating, that's when they hypocritically starts trampling all over the rights to free expression.
| The only difference between one person and 1000 is magnitude. |
...and the power of the intimidation. You can punch the light out of one man who starts intimidating and try to stop you from excercising your rights, if you feel threatened by him. He'll be wrong, but not successful.
If 1000 non-threatening protesters begs you to stop, but don't use intimidation, they will be right, but not successful if you go ahead with the burning.
Is it wrong to say shut the fuck up? It's a paradox, becuase of the infinite regression(?) of who has the right to express their minds and ideas? Can you say to me "you can't tell people to shut the fuck up"? Not unless you're being as hypocritical as you'd think I am.
I think that using intimidation (as you brought it up) is where we should draw the line. By using intimidation you're no longer expressing your dislike of me expressing my ideas, you're forcefully trying to prevent me from expressing it.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Burning the Koran: how stupid is this?
