|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 09:06:29 [Permalink]
|
| I have several responses to your post Dude. Unfortunately, I must go to work. But I will say this. There are laws against assault. I can tell a person to knock it off but I can't touch that person or do him physical harm without risking jail time. That you feel intimidated because you're outnumbered isn't a problem with the counter protest. It just means that they were better organized which is another right they have. The opposite situation also happens. If one side is more effective at getting people out there, it doesn't change the fact that the playing field is essentially level. So I reject that argument as being irrelevant to what I can say in response to what I perceive is a bad idea. |
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 - 09/13/2010 : 09:08:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
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.
|
Telling somebody to shut up is an act of intimidation, maybe a mild one, but none the less it is an expression of your desire to impose your will on another person. While you can probably ignore one person, or maybe even 10, when it's a lot of people you agree that it's not right? I'm saying that the ethics of the situation are the same for one person as for a thousand.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 09:23:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
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) |
To allow the free expression of ideas. Me telling someone else to shut up is not impeding that persons free expression of ideas. The government suppressing free speech of someone else is. I thought that was clear enough from my last response.
| Just because the government would have the power to act is not the reason. |
Euh, yes it is.
| 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. |
And you're landing in internal contradiction land again. Now you think I should shut up, because perhaps others agree with me and this could lead to a situation that may be considered threatening to you. Don't you see that what you are arguing here logically leads to the exact behavior that you say I shouldn't portray?
Your potential scenario applies to all other free speech arguments as well. Every time you say something, someone else may disagree with you. And every time they do, there is the potential that they go out in the streets and protest, by the 10's, or 100's, or 1000's. Perhaps you are an atheist and others want to protest against atheists. Not against atheists speaking out, but against atheists. Or perhaps people want to protest against the building of, oh I don't know, a community center.
Every time people protest, this may be perceived as threatening to people disagreeing with the protesters. What other topics should I shut up about, Dude? If that is really the reasoning you want to follow.
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. |
Well great, there is your solution for the situation above.
Note, by the way, that in trying to persuade the idiot to not burn Qurans, nobody is stating that he cannot voice his criticisms of Islam. Only that they think this way of doing it is not the way to do it. Just as Phelps is just moved to a different place to shout his bile. Note also that nobody is forcefully trying to stop Jones from burning Qurans. Whatever they are saying, if Jones wouldn't have himself be persuaded, he could have had his bonfire.
| 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.
|
And thus you are calling for silence. Note that in arguing that something is better not said, the person arguing does not actively force someone else in not saying it. That someone else can always say that yes, they have listened to your arguments on why he should not go forward and he thinks you're an idiot and will say it anyway. |
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 : 09:27:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Telling somebody to shut up is an act of intimidation, maybe a mild one, but none the less it is an expression of your desire to impose your will on another person. |
Not more so than any other free expression of ideas.
| While you can probably ignore one person, or maybe even 10, when it's a lot of people you agree that it's not right? I'm saying that the ethics of the situation are the same for one person as for a thousand. |
So is Dr. Mabuse. Maybe you should read his post again, because I don't think you got the point he was trying to make. |
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 : 09:43:49 [Permalink]
|
tom said:
| Me telling someone else to shut up is not impeding that persons free expression of ideas. |
I never said it was. What I'm saying is that it's hypocritical. You are, of course, free to be a hypocrite.
It's not the only reason. Surely you aren't suggesting that the only reason we codified protection of speech into law was to prevent the government from interfering with it? You don't think there is a larger principle of civil liberties behind it?
Let me sum up this argument so far:
When somebody says, "Hey, I respect your right to free speech, but I think you should shut the fuck up."
I say that is hypocritical, you and Kil say it isn't. Further, you are trying to wrongly equate my criticism of your hypocrisy to your hypocrisy.
The argument is stalled here....
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 10:37:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
tom said:
| Me telling someone else to shut up is not impeding that persons free expression of ideas. |
I never said it was. |
Funny, I could have sworn otherwise just a few posts ago. But I'm glad you see that it is not a tenable excuse for telling me to shut up 
| What I'm saying is that it's hypocritical. You are, of course, free to be a hypocrite. |
I'm being hypocritical? You are the one with the internally contradictory position. The problem with your position is that if I'm a hypocrite for telling someone else my opinion on the shutting up, you by inference are guilty of the same crime.
It's not the only reason. Surely you aren't suggesting that the only reason we codified protection of speech into law was to prevent the government from interfering with it? |
Is there a better reason?
| You don't think there is a larger principle of civil liberties behind it? |
I have yet to hear anyone give another reason that doesn't in the end boil down to government not interfering with free speech. What larger principle could there be than that overarching one?
Let me sum up this argument so far:
When somebody says, "Hey, I respect your right to free speech, but I think you should shut the fuck up."
I say that is hypocritical, you and Kil say it isn't. |
And you have yet to give an argument for it being hypocritical. The problem is that the arguments you have supplied so far can be applied to all issues of free speech.
Is the government restricted in it's right to force people to shut up? Yes, but the government is restricted in a lot of ways where individuals are not, touching on a whole boatload of free speech issues. That is because the government is not the individual.
Can telling someone to shut up be perceived as threatening, especially when said with a large enough number of people at the same time. Sure, but so are lots of other issues, like criticizing Islam, Chritianity is Atheism in large protests could be perceived as threatening for muslims, christians or atheists respectively.
What it boils down to is that any act we engage in, is open for criticism. Of any act someone undertakes, if we think it is not a wise decision, misguided, offensive or downright moronic, we are allowed to try to persuade that person to act differently. And when I say any act, this includes the act of speaking itself.
| Further, you are trying to wrongly equate my criticism of your hypocrisy to your hypocrisy. |
You have yet to show how your position does not end up there. I you say that telling someone that he should shut up is unethical, you end up telling someone to shut up yourself. You may not like the fact that you dug that hole for yourself, but doesn't make the hole go away now you dug it. |
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- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 09/13/2010 10:40:30 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 12:46:10 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| Your question is almost as absurd as your position in this thread. |
Is it as absurd as Dave's statement...| I'd say that if I faced a choice between dying and the First Amendment being repealed, I would choose death. |
...?
Your statement was much more extenuatory | If the first amendment was actually about to be repealed I would take up arms against my government. In doing so there is a better than average chance of death, but that is the kind of "sacrifice" I would make. Preserving the first amendment is worth fighting, and maybe dying, for. |
Would you actually fire your weapon against a policeman or infantryman who was opposing your insurrection?
If you were in a group of a few hundred armed insurgents standing up against a larger group of police or military professionals?
In other words, would you commit suicide by policeman or soldier in defense of your cause? |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 13:23:59 [Permalink]
|
tom said:
| I'm being hypocritical? You are the one with the internally contradictory position. The problem with your position is that if I'm a hypocrite for telling someone else my opinion on the shutting up, you by inference are guilty of the same crime. |
Really, do you need to go review logic 101? Logic is context dependent tom. I reject your premise that criticism is equivalent to calling for silence. I've said that a dozen times. I'll grant that this is a matter of personal judgment and we have differing views, but my position is only contradictory if you wrongly apply your premise to my conclusion. Sorry that you don't understand logic.
| Funny, I could have sworn otherwise just a few posts ago. |
It's hypocritical and if enough people (or a powerful enough individual) participate in telling you to shut up then it could impede your free expression of ideas.
I have yet to hear anyone give another reason that doesn't in the end boil down to government not interfering with free speech. What larger principle could there be than that overarching one?
|
I'm sorry that you are unfamiliar with the philosophy of civil liberties upon which our most important laws are based. It's about more than just limiting government interference, but this thread is a perfect example of why the law is limited at that point, people don't often agree.
You have heard some of the arguments on net neutrality? That is a good example of the potential of non-governmental powers being applied to restrict or limit speech by biasing the availability of information.
| You have yet to show how your position does not end up there. I you say that telling someone that he should shut up is unethical, you end up telling someone to shut up yourself. You may not like the fact that you dug that hole for yourself, but doesn't make the hole go away now you dug it. |
Again, that is your failure to understand logic, not mine. I have repeatedly said that I reject your premise. Criticism of a person or idea or action is not equivalent to telling them to shut up. No matter how many times you insist that it is, it won't ever be that. As long as you insist on evaluating my conclusion vs your premise it will be you who has the logic deficit.
|
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 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 13:41:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dude.....
| Your question is almost as absurd as your position in this thread. |
Is it as absurd as Dave's statement...| I'd say that if I faced a choice between dying and the First Amendment being repealed, I would choose death. |
...?
Your statement was much more extenuatory | If the first amendment was actually about to be repealed I would take up arms against my government. In doing so there is a better than average chance of death, but that is the kind of "sacrifice" I would make. Preserving the first amendment is worth fighting, and maybe dying, for. |
Would you actually fire your weapon against a policeman or infantryman who was opposing your insurrection?
If you were in a group of a few hundred armed insurgents standing up against a larger group of police or military professionals?
In other words, would you commit suicide by policeman or soldier in defense of your cause?
|
errrrr...... huh?
Yeah, I'm going to march down the fucking street in the style of the British army in 1777, STAND AND DELIVER! LOAD! AIM! FIRE!
You are adding confirming evidence that you don't really hold the position you actually claim in this thread.....
Why could I not, instead, act as an insurgent? Either alone or with a small group? In the US, with the wide availability of basic materials, and the ubiquitous urban environment, I have little doubt about being able to inflict a lot of damage. No need to stand up and have a face-to-face battle with professionals, I am uninterested in suicide.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 13:46:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
Originally posted by Dude
When somebody says, "Hey, I respect your right to free speech, but I think you should shut the fuck up."
I say that is hypocritical, you and Kil say it isn't. Further, you are trying to wrongly equate my criticism of your hypocrisy to your hypocrisy. |
Do you think it is hypocritical to think they should "shut the fuck up", or is it merely the act of expressing this thought?
|
Unless you think the Jimmy Carter method is correct (he thinks it is possible to commit adultery just by thinking about it), then I'd have to say it is action that matters.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 14:14:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
errrrr...... huh? |
Near as I can tell, bngbuck doesn't think that our civil rights are worth anyone's death, and so is expressing his incredulity that anyone would really be willing to fight and/or die to maintain them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 14:17:25 [Permalink]
|
Dave.......
| If you'd like to present a realistic scenario in which I'd have to sacrifice something to help ensure the continuation of our civil rights, I'd be happy to consider it. |
Not just something, your life!
OK. The Republicans take over House, Senate, and Presidency with large margins. They succeed in repealing the first clause in the Bill of Rights, on the grounds that uncontrolled freedom of speech and expression gives too much power to Islam, which we must defeat by military force and nuclear arms.
We go to a lock-down, military law situation of control in this country. A majority of the population buys the bullshit and votes for extreme "wartime" controls. War is declared on Iran, Syria, and possibly other Islamic countries. The military is solidly behind President Boehner (Cheney has lost heart for the job) and the overwhelmingly Republican Congress. Armed insurrection becomes a federal crime punishable by a mandatory death sentence. The citizenry is behind the Goverment by a substantial margin, because we are "at war" and draconian controls and rules are "necessary" to defeat the "enemy".
Your individual suicide will unlikely be noted or recognized by others, although the press will report the event.
Would you join Dude and take up arms against overwhelming odds in a shooting confrontation with Federal Police augmented by strong miliary force to attempt to defeat the government, knowing that your effort was not only Quixotic, but completely suicidal - even if you are not killed in protest action, you will be arrested and executed for your act.
Would you commit suicide by "Treason", knowing that you didn't have a chance to survive if you undertook such action? Maybe 30% of the country is on your side in defending the Constitution, and there is a possibility that the minority may grow subtantially in the years to come as the new dictatorship becomes more and more unpopular, but it is unsure as yet. Currently, the Tea Party rules with an iron hand.
Perhaps a situation somewhat similar to the Germans when Hitler took over. I know, I know, there are huge differences, but this is as "realistic" a scenario as I could come up with on short notice.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 14:55:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Dude
errrrr...... huh? |
Near as I can tell, bngbuck doesn't think that our civil rights are worth anyone's death, and so is expressing his incredulity that anyone would really be willing to fight and/or die to maintain them.
|
He keeps presenting these absurd scenarios. As if insurrection can only be accomplished by the military tactics of colonial area armies, or the US would succumb so rapidly to the right-wing extremists and they could convince the entire military to act as civilian police and a force projection tool at the same time all the while most people are on board with the plan.... I'm thinking I'd have fired my first shot or moved to New Zealand well before that scenario could come to be.
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 14:59:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave.......
| If you'd like to present a realistic scenario in which I'd have to sacrifice something to help ensure the continuation of our civil rights, I'd be happy to consider it. |
Not just something, your life!
OK. The Republicans take over House, Senate, and Presidency with large margins. They succeed in repealing the first clause in the Bill of Rights, on the grounds that uncontrolled freedom of speech and expression gives too much power to Islam, which we must defeat by military force and nuclear arms.
We go to a lock-down, military law situation of control in this country. A majority of the population buys the bullshit and votes for extreme "wartime" controls. War is declared on Iran, Syria, and possibly other Islamic countries. The military is solidly behind President Boehner (Cheney has lost heart for the job) and the overwhelmingly Republican Congress. Armed insurrection becomes a federal crime punishable by a mandatory death sentence. The citizenry is behind the Goverment by a substantial margin, because we are "at war" and draconian controls and rules are "necessary" to defeat the "enemy".
Your individual suicide will unlikely be noted or recognized by others, although the press will report the event.
Would you join Dude and take up arms against overwhelming odds in a shooting confrontation with Federal Police augmented by strong miliary force to attempt to defeat the government, knowing that your effort was not only Quixotic, but completely suicidal - even if you are not killed in protest action, you will be arrested and executed for your act.
Would you commit suicide by "Treason", knowing that you didn't have a chance to survive if you undertook such action? Maybe 30% of the country is on your side in defending the Constitution, and there is a possibility that the minority may grow subtantially in the years to come as the new dictatorship becomes more and more unpopular, but it is unsure as yet. Currently, the Tea Party rules with an iron hand.
Perhaps a situation somewhat similar to the Germans when Hitler took over. I know, I know, there are huge differences, but this is as "realistic" a scenario as I could come up with on short notice. |
In such a case, with the US hardly recognizable, I'd be doing everything I could to get things back the way they are now (actually a little before now), up to and including "direct action." Since the intent would be to change the government back, it would be to the "movement's" benefit for its members to stay alive and uncaught, but the risk would always be present and I would willingly accept it. Whether I would accept any actual suicide missions would depend on many variables, but I wouldn't rule them out a priori.
Getting myself gunned down in the street because I flipped off a cop, or getting myself executed for treason because I sent a nasty email to Dictator Boehner wouldn't help anyone, now would it? I'm not so stupid as to simply throw my life away, bngbuck. I'd have to see a decent chance of getting something better in return, like a blown-up bit of important infrastructure, or a dozen new insurgents.
But I certainly wouldn't be sitting on my hands, waiting for the troubles to be over and doing whatever the government told me to do so that I'd still be alive afterward. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Burning the Koran: how stupid is this?
