|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 15:51:45 [Permalink]
|
Dave
| 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. |
Near as you can tell is not near enough. I don't think that our civil rights are worth my giving my life to defend our civil rights. I rather admire the idealistic spirit of those that would gladly and willingly die for their country or for the rights of others that remain alive. (Dead men have no rights).
I am surprised, not incredulous, that any relatively young person would in fact choose to die for an ideal or a principle. Particularly without any possibility of the sacrifice helping correct the problem.
I am quite aware that such sacrifices have been made many times in history. I have been frequently surprised, as I am at Dave, Dude,'s and perhaps even Kil's (somewhat ambiguous) statements.
I do have some suspicion that expressed patriotism of this degree might fade if put to the test, but then again, I am a cynical skeptic.
There are people that have to do dangerous and sometimes fatal work, like police and military, I am not one of them, although I am very glad that such personalities exist. Personally, as a citizen, I would not willingly sacrifice my life in any event except a direct threat to my own life or that of my loved ones. I would not give my life to save the life of a stranger, although I certainly would give one help and support - even to the degree of personal sacrifice, material, not life itself.
I understand that a serious erosion of our freedoms could lead in the future to a threat to my own life and my family, but that future possibility would have to be imminent for me to consider either sacrificing or putting in jeopardy the lives of myself and/or mine. |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 09/13/2010 : 16:28:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Particularly without any possibility of the sacrifice helping correct the problem. |
Nobody here has expressed any such willingness. I certainly would not give up my life if I knew it wouldn't help anything. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 16:45:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
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. |
I understand logic just fine. You have to apply it first though.
You say the criticism of an idea is not equivalent to calling for silence. But what difference is there? If I am saying that Jones' bookburning is a bad idea and he therefore shouldn't do it, whichever way I word it this amounts to me saying "you shouldn't do it". If I criticize Phelps for protesting at a funeral, whichever way I state it, it just comes down to "you should not do that".
Similarly, if you criticize me for "calling for silence", for all intents and purposes you say that I should not be performing that action. There can be no other meaning to what you say. And so, the circle is round once more.
For all your criticism of my logical faculties, you have yet to give something more convincing than "na ah, is not!" against it.
| 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. |
So now it does impede expression of ideas. Make up your mind Dude.
But you are right, me expressing my opinion that someone should shut his mouth can lead to a mass protest of people saying that he should shut his mouth and this can be intimidating for him. But again, this is a non-argument because it holds for all speech, not just "shut your mouth"-speech. I already supplied a number of examples and will be happy to supply more, but I think I made my point already.
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. |
Ah, you are correct there. But note that there the theme is similar here. The problem with net neutrality is that the availability of information is limited by someone else than the individual who wants to sent out the information.
Note that neither Kil nor I are calling for the limitation of information by other people than the person sending out the information himself. We are not arguing that it is right that someone else restricts your (or anybody elses) right to say what you want, where you want it. What we are arguing that it is our right to, in response, say that we think that you shouldn't be saying that stuff. You can listen to our arguments for that and decide for yourself whether you than want to continue with saying what you say, where you want to say it. If you don't want to listen to us, none of us will stand in your way.
Not saying that I think you should shut up could in fact, hypothetically, cause you to miss out on important information that might have caused you to rethink them. Any action has consequences, even free speech actions. It seems to me that if I have a plan for a protest and others think I should not do this protest because of the consequences it may have, their objections to my protest can give me important information for my protest. Perhaps certain people are offended that I myself do not want to offend. Perhaps another form of action is more effective. Perhaps the reactions show me that I am already having the desired effect and fuel my enthusiasm for the protest even more.
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. |
How is it not? What does your criticism amount to other than "you should not say that?" Because that is what we are arguing here. You say that if I disagree with a certain free speech action, like a protest or a book burning, I should not tell them to cancel their protest or book burning. And if I would be convinced by your conclusions, that would be what this logically amounts to, me stopping telling someone else to not do that book burning or protest. That where the logic train stops.
What other conclusion can there be from agreeing with your ideas, Dude?
|
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- |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 17:41:00 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
You offer some quite sensible alternative solutions to my somewhat wacky "scenario" (please remind Dude that you requested that one!) In fact, your earlier statement as to the difficulty in imagining a realistic situation in which you would be compelled to sacrifice your life to defend free speech, etc., is very true. I had a hard enough time in coming up with the Orwellian possibility that you adroitly avoided by suggesting other alternatives that would be available to you.
I would have to posit that you had been captured, given the choice to work under guard and chain to advance the suppression of civil rights, or be shot. You probably would choose death under those conditions, as would Dude, but I would not. Like John McCaine, I would choose to live in the hope that this too, shall pass.
But the fact that it is difficult if not impossible to relate your, or Dude's willingness to give your life for your ideals to a realistic possible situation in which such a dedication is testible, makes your statement....| I'd say that if I faced a choice between dying and the First Amendment being repealed, I would choose death. |
.....almost meaningless. It's as if you said, "I would gladly submit to being torn to bits by a dragon." It is almost impossible that you could be faced with an absolute choice of "give me freedom or give me death" I would not commend you for your bravery because of the scarcity of dragons or current Pol Pots.
Only if you take the imaginary situation, for the moment, and fully accept the entire premise that it is as stated and literally true; does the scenario ask a valid question: Are you willing to give up your life for a principle like freedom of speech? You have to accept the entire fantasy that you have been put in a position of inevitably sacrificing your life for an set of freedoms, or staying alive without those freedoms. In the fantasy, you have no other options, (of which you have pointed out several very good ones.) But, no, regardless of the details that surround the situation, you have a Hobsons choice of dying with the concomitant loss of personal freedoms, or remaining alive with your personal freedoms repealed (at least the 1st of the BOR). You really have no choice regarding the freedoms, only as to whether you live or not.
As the question is almost purely hypothetical, so is the answer - as I thought it was. You and Dude and probably Kil would all be ready, willing and able to risk your lives for American freedoms. But risk is a pretty far cry from inescapable sacrifice.
Practically any thinking person would be willing to take any degree of risk of loss of life as opposed to the certainty of losing it. The man that sawed off his trapped arm with a jackknife, knowing he would surely die otherwise, is a good example. I am one of these. I would also risk death to save my family, or even accept death in order to save the life of a loved one.
You, Dude, and Kil are willing to risk your lives in defense of Constitutional rights. Many war heroes, in many wars, have been good examples of this. I have to admire them, but I know not why. I am not one in temperament with these people. This may be called cowardly of me. There is some truth in that judgment.
I am willing to risk my life by driving my car at high speed, riding in and (formerly, when I could physically qualify) piloting small airplanes over dangerous terrain, and several other dangerous activities. The cost/benefit ratios of these activities appear attractive to me. The c/b ratio of risking death for the questionable future of our constitutional rights as they may be eroded by future politicians is unacceptable to me. It is a simple, admittedly large, difference of opinion (in the truest sense of that word) as to what values are primary. I would even risk my life for money. It would have to be a rather large sum and the odds in excess of one in fifty, but I would play Russian Roulette with a 51 cartridge revolver one time for a few million dollars.(Tax free, of course) How about you?
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/13/2010 : 18:35:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
But the fact that it is difficult if not impossible to relate your, or Dude's willingness to give your life for your ideals to a realistic possible situation in which such a dedication is testible, makes your statement....| I'd say that if I faced a choice between dying and the First Amendment being repealed, I would choose death. |
.....almost meaningless. |
But that's just it: we got into this because you were making ridiculous analogies. But while the question itself is meaningless (the odds of my winding up in a rights-or-life situation are incredibly slim), my answer was honest.| Only if you take the imaginary situation, for the moment, and fully accept the entire premise that it is as stated and literally true; does the scenario ask a valid question: Are you willing to give up your life for a principle like freedom of speech? You have to accept the entire fantasy that you have been put in a position of inevitably sacrificing your life for an set of freedoms, or staying alive without those freedoms. In the fantasy, you have no other options, (of which you have pointed out several very good ones.) But, no, regardless of the details that surround the situation, you have a Hobsons choice of dying with the concomitant loss of personal freedoms, or remaining alive with your personal freedoms repealed (at least the 1st of the BOR). You really have no choice regarding the freedoms, only as to whether you live or not. |
Well, that wasn't the scenario I was imagining. I was thinking the choice was between my life and the rights of 300 million Americans. The calculus there is easy. But with the choice between just my rights and just my life, it really doesn't matter if there's no possibility of me ever regaining my rights (which, to accept the dilemma as stated, there is none). My choice is between a terminal existence with no right to speak or associate (or even to be atheist), or immediate death. I'm not seeing a big difference.| As the question is almost purely hypothetical, so is the answer - as I thought it was. You and Dude and probably Kil would all be ready, willing and able to risk your lives for American freedoms. But risk is a pretty far cry from inescapable sacrifice. |
As I said, if my death would guarantee the continuation of civil rights for the rest of the nation, while saving my skin meant the elimination of those rights, the decision is easy. I'm not sure that there's a more crystal-clear moral path. Again: my rights end either way. The question is whether I save or discard everyone else's freedoms. |
- 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 - 09/13/2010 : 20:50:40 [Permalink]
|
tom said:
| For all your criticism of my logical faculties, you have yet to give something more convincing than "na ah, is not!" against it. |
Because you are the one making a positive claim, so you have to provide evidence for it. I get to say "na uh!" all day long and remain on safe ground. (until you provide evidence or argument beyond a simple assertion)
| You say the criticism of an idea is not equivalent to calling for silence. But what difference is there? If I am saying that Jones' bookburning is a bad idea and he therefore shouldn't do it, whichever way I word it this amounts to me saying "you shouldn't do it". If I criticize Phelps for protesting at a funeral, whichever way I state it, it just comes down to "you should not do that". |
Again, no. Those two things are not equivalent. Only when you include an actual "therefore shouldn't do it", as you just did in that example, can you stretch criticism of his idea or action into the same as calling for him to stop, because you actually call for him to stop.
Similarly, if you criticize me for "calling for silence", for all intents and purposes you say that I should not be performing that action. There can be no other meaning to what you say. And so, the circle is round once more.
|
More or less, except you have not followed through with the reasoning. Is it acceptable to be intolerant of intolerance? I'd say yes. Just as I say the only time to call for silence in matters of protected speech is when you are telling those calling for silence to shut up.
| The problem with net neutrality is that the availability of information is limited by someone else than the individual who wants to sent out the information. |
Just one of many examples available where free speech is threatened by non-government sources.
| How is it not? What does your criticism amount to other than "you should not say that?" Because that is what we are arguing here. You say that if I disagree with a certain free speech action, like a protest or a book burning, I should not tell them to cancel their protest or book burning. And if I would be convinced by your conclusions, that would be what this logically amounts to, me stopping telling someone else to not do that book burning or protest. That where the logic train stops. |
See above where I point out that you haven't followed the reasoning through.
|
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 : 21:06:26 [Permalink]
|
bng said:
| But the fact that it is difficult if not impossible to relate your, or Dude's willingness to give your life for your ideals to a realistic possible situation in which such a dedication is testible, makes your statement.... |
You started out with the cocked up analogies and absurdly unplausible scenarios.
Let me see if I can clarify this for you. If there were any situation where the first amendment protection of speech were suspended or removed, If I were still resident in the US I would take up arms against the government. When I say this, I don't mean I would grab my AR-15 and mount a charge against a federal building. Nor would I ever intentionally engage professional soldiers in a contest of martial skill. I'm uninterested in dying for nothing, or dying stupidly, and the outcome of those situations is a guarantee of me taking a dirtnap without having gained anything.
I'd find a way to resist through insurgency, or to escape. I'd risk my life, but only if I had a specific goal in mind that was both worthy and had a chance of success.
And I'd get you to finance it all.....
|
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 - 09/13/2010 : 22:48:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
tom said:
| For all your criticism of my logical faculties, you have yet to give something more convincing than "na ah, is not!" against it. |
Because you are the one making a positive claim, so you have to provide evidence for it. I get to say "na uh!" all day long and remain on safe ground. (until you provide evidence or argument beyond a simple assertion) |
Oh bullshit. This conversation started when you made this claim:
| The only response to that is a giant "fuck you!" to the people telling you to shut up. Everyone has a right to speak, and even the right to tell people to shut up, but it runs counter to the intent and spirit of free speech if you tell a person you don't agree with to stop speaking. It's only a crime if you are the government telling people to shut up, true, but so what? |
Bolding mine.
That’s the positive claim that started this debate. And you made it. You are in no position to defend against Tom's point by pulling a "burden of proof" argument on him while offering insulting tidbits like "do you need to go review logic 101?"
 |
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 - 09/14/2010 : 06:33:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Dude
tom said:
| For all your criticism of my logical faculties, you have yet to give something more convincing than "na ah, is not!" against it. |
Because you are the one making a positive claim, so you have to provide evidence for it. I get to say "na uh!" all day long and remain on safe ground. (until you provide evidence or argument beyond a simple assertion) |
Oh bullshit. This conversation started when you made this claim:
| The only response to that is a giant "fuck you!" to the people telling you to shut up. Everyone has a right to speak, and even the right to tell people to shut up, but it runs counter to the intent and spirit of free speech if you tell a person you don't agree with to stop speaking. It's only a crime if you are the government telling people to shut up, true, but so what? |
Bolding mine.
That’s the positive claim that started this debate. And you made it. You are in no position to defend against Tom's point by pulling a "burden of proof" argument on him while offering insulting tidbits like "do you need to go review logic 101?"
|
Because it's fucking self evidently obvious that "Hey, you, shut the fuck up!" is the exact fucking opposite of the idea that everyone has the right to speak their mind.
Also, the thing I'm talking about when I ask Tom for evidence is his (and your) claim that criticism is the equivalent of calling for silence!
What the fuck....
indeed.
|
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 - 09/14/2010 : 07:57:49 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
Also, the thing I'm talking about when I ask Tom for evidence is his (and your) claim that criticism is the equivalent of calling for silence! |
But Dude. In the context that we are discussing it, It's self self evidently obvious. Or is it that when Dude makes a claim, that's it. End of discussion.
Perhaps we should be sitting at your feet and learning from the master, oh great one...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2010 : 08:05:47 [Permalink]
|
Free Speech is an illusion, it's actually Free Speech*
*Exceptions for threats, libel, slander which causes economic/emotional fallout, ingredient labeling, medicinal effects/side-effects, sedition, on-line bullying and so-on.
Free speech is only truly available to those with the best lawyers.
Better get your guns Dude. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2010 : 08:11:12 [Permalink]
|
 AH, SHADDAFUCKUP!!
There. Somebody had to say it whilst the demon-infested smoke from smouldering Korans and Bibles, albeit pitifully thin from the very get-go, is still dissipating in the gentle zephyrs of late summer.
I felt so good this morning that I fired the Shovelhead and rode it to town; the first time I'd been on it for quite a while. Picked up some groceries and a jug of booze, bopped around for a while, and came home. Feelin' fine. Painted ladies and a bottle o' wine. 
One might get the impression that all is well in filthville, but alas, it is not. Reason: this thread has come off so dull that unsupervised toddlers could safely play with it.
I mean, shit, if you gotta hijack one, at least make it an interesting hijack. Yer borin' me outta my tits! 
Okay, the Koran burning season is over 'till next year and we have three hundred & sixty-some days to get it together. Let's try again next September, this time making it happen and leaving personality conflicts and nobody-cares philosophy to be settled in another place, hmm?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2010 : 08:28:58 [Permalink]
|
| Oh my gosh! filthy has run afoul of the intent of free speech!!! What to do... what to do..? Have to agree though. This is pretty fucking boring. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2010 : 08:42:36 [Permalink]
|
*Inserts gratuitious nudity and ultra-violence*
...We're back on folks! |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2010 : 09:14:34 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
I am certain that you believe it was.| As I said, if my death would guarantee the continuation of civil rights for the rest of the nation, while saving my skin meant the elimination of those rights, the decision is easy. |
You are a Saint! I cannot say more or Filthy will burn a copy of Alice in Wonderland. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Burning the Koran: how stupid is this?
