ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags censorship , free speech

Reply
Old 11th April 2019, 02:46 AM   #321
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post

In this case, if you take away free speech.
Nobody is advocating taking it away.

We are pointing out that we limit free speech already and suggesting that is absolutely the right thing to do because it can cause harm to individuals and society as a whole.

Let's say I fall out with my neighbour Bob over his trees growing into my garden. Absolute free speech would allow me to follow him around the streets shouting 'Bob is a rapist, he raped my sister' to publish these accusations in newspapers, on billboards, to put them on social media, to go to his place of work or write to his employers and tell them Bob is a rapist. To write to all his relatives with this accusation.

And your comeback would and could only be that all of those people should be wise enough to do the work to realise that the accusations are unfounded and that Bob should just put up with up because free speech is sacrosanct.

I don't think even you would support that.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 02:48 AM   #322
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
you take away the voice of the people
And just to follow up, as I said before this part is also a myth. Because unfettered markets for anything don't preserve the voice of the little guy. They drown them out.

The ideas that win are those with the most resources to support them regardless of their merit. We are seeing this in action all over the globe.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 06:55 AM   #323
DragonLady
Illuminator
 
DragonLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 4,331
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You know, once I found a website about the "Apollo Hoax" and the owner said he had been researching the topic for years... and the first piece of 'evidence' he mentioned was the lack of stars in the moon pictures. Sometimes spending a lot of time thinking about it from the exact same angle doesn't help.
Cool story, Bro.

Quote:
If you apply the exact same logic to everything, you're ignoring that humans value different things differently, and therefore that context changes the logic we should use.
No; just the opposite. I'm saying both sides of any view should always be free to speak.

Person A: "I think Nazi's are POS's who deserve to die!!!"

Person B: "I think Nazi's had it right all along, and here's my argument"

Person A: "Ack, how can you say that? You deserve to tied up with a ball gag, and we should immediately make laws to silence you forever".

Just as someone said upstream, it's "freedom of speech for me, but not for thee". Every time.

Quote:
...those are the ONLY sources of legislation.
Hardly. If we based our laws on what the majority thinks is right or wrong, our US history would be very, very different.

We have two different kinds of laws -priority, and moral. The first establishes priorities: do we need better roads, or another hospital? The moral laws try to define what is "right" according to the cultural values of the time and place -which change constantly.

When I said "you can't legislate morality" I didn't mean you couldn't actually write a law -people do that all the time. But you can't write one that won't be "wrong" for a huge number of people; and if you take away their freedom to speak, you've screwed them for eternity.

Just consider the sodomy laws that have been overturned in our lifetime. If the LGBT community had not been allowed to speak about their lives, their needs, their desires, etc. because they were silenced as "queers" (which a HUGE number of people wanted to see happen) would we have changed those laws to reflect the values of a new generation?
__________________
http://www.troubador.co.uk/book_info.asp?bookid=2499

She would be half a planet away, floating in a turquoise sea, dancing by moonlight to flamenco guitar. ~ Janet Fitch

The Gweat and Tewwible Winged One

Last edited by DragonLady; 11th April 2019 at 06:57 AM.
DragonLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 07:04 AM   #324
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,043
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Cool story, Bro.
It's also a real story. Hopefully you got the point, rather than just hand-wave it.

Quote:
No; just the opposite. I'm saying both sides of any view should always be free to speak.
That's great, and I agree. However that's not the statement I took exception to, remember? A certain logic or approach may work for one thing (e.g. freedom of speech) and not for another (e.g. speed limits).

Quote:
Hardly. If we based our laws on what the majority thinks is right or wrong, our US history would be very, very different.
You're moving the goalposts. Laws are based on morality, which is based on values, which are based on emotion. There isn't a law that isn't based on supporting those values. That doesn't mean that the values are the ones of the majority.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 07:05 AM   #325
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,426
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Cool story, Bro.



No; just the opposite. I'm saying both sides of any view should always be free to speak.

Person A: "I think Nazi's are POS's who deserve to die!!!"

Person B: "I think Nazi's had it right all along, and here's my argument"

Person A: "Ack, how can you say that? You deserve to tied up with a ball gag, and we should immediately make laws to silence you forever".

Just as someone said upstream, it's "freedom of speech for me, but not for thee". Every time.



Hardly. If we based our laws on what the majority thinks is right or wrong, our US history would be very, very different.

We have two different kinds of laws -priority, and moral. The first establishes priorities: do we need better roads, or another hospital? The moral laws try to define what is "right" according to the cultural values of the time and place -which change constantly.

When I said "you can't legislate morality" I didn't mean you couldn't actually write a law -people do that all the time. But you can't write one that won't be "wrong" for a huge number of people; and if you take away their freedom to speak, you've screwed them for eternity.

Just consider the sodomy laws that have been overturned in our lifetime. If the LGBT community had not been allowed to speak about their lives, their needs, their desires, etc. because they were silenced as "queers" (which a HUGE number of people wanted to see happen) would we have changed those laws to reflect the values of a new generation?
So what you're saying is that we can and do write such laws but that you don't like it.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 08:56 AM   #326
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,457
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
Cool story, Bro.



No; just the opposite. I'm saying both sides of any view should always be free to speak.

Person A: "I think Nazi's are POS's who deserve to die!!!"

Person B: "I think Nazi's had it right all along, and here's my argument"

Person A: "Ack, how can you say that? You deserve to tied up with a ball gag, and we should immediately make laws to silence you forever".

Just as someone said upstream, it's "freedom of speech for me, but not for thee". Every time.



Hardly. If we based our laws on what the majority thinks is right or wrong, our US history would be very, very different.

We have two different kinds of laws -priority, and moral. The first establishes priorities: do we need better roads, or another hospital? The moral laws try to define what is "right" according to the cultural values of the time and place -which change constantly.

When I said "you can't legislate morality" I didn't mean you couldn't actually write a law -people do that all the time. But you can't write one that won't be "wrong" for a huge number of people; and if you take away their freedom to speak, you've screwed them for eternity.

Just consider the sodomy laws that have been overturned in our lifetime. If the LGBT community had not been allowed to speak about their lives, their needs, their desires, etc. because they were silenced as "queers" (which a HUGE number of people wanted to see happen) would we have changed those laws to reflect the values of a new generation?
I've mentioned it before but for me there is quite a clear line to use but first of all let me say this is not that you can't discuss say historical events, that you can't discuss controversial subjects and all that.

The line for me is when someone is advocating for direct harm to their fellow citizens. So for example someone claiming to be a Nazi, I am quite happy that they would not be able to talk publically about following that ideology because that ideology we know is about murdering millions of our fellow citizens. Anyone who claims to be a Nazi wants to kill me, that's part and parcel of Nazism we know that beyond any doubt, I have no problem at all with society stopping people who are trying to have me killed from inciting for me to be killed.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 09:22 AM   #327
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,043
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I've mentioned it before but for me there is quite a clear line to use but first of all let me say this is not that you can't discuss say historical events, that you can't discuss controversial subjects and all that.

The line for me is when someone is advocating for direct harm to their fellow citizens. So for example someone claiming to be a Nazi, I am quite happy that they would not be able to talk publically about following that ideology because that ideology we know is about murdering millions of our fellow citizens. Anyone who claims to be a Nazi wants to kill me, that's part and parcel of Nazism we know that beyond any doubt, I have no problem at all with society stopping people who are trying to have me killed from inciting for me to be killed.
Serious question: is intolerance towards gay people, for example, a core tenet of Nazi ideology? Or could someone be part Nazi? It might sound silly, but it's like asking of veneration of the Virgin Mary is a core tenet of Christianity just because the Catholics do it. Am I making sense?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 09:55 AM   #328
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Serious question: is intolerance towards gay people, for example, a core tenet of Nazi ideology? Or could someone be part Nazi? It might sound silly, but it's like asking of veneration of the Virgin Mary is a core tenet of Christianity just because the Catholics do it. Am I making sense?
With Nazism we have one instance in which it was implemented and that is what people today are saying they follow therefore anyone advocating for it is without doubt advocating for the mass murder of their fellow citizens (as well as removing human rights) . I can't see there being any doubt as to what Nazism actually is.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 10:00 AM   #329
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,043
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
With Nazism we have one instance in which it was implemented and that is what people today are saying they follow therefore anyone advocating for it is without doubt advocating for the mass murder of their fellow citizens (as well as removing human rights) . I can't see there being any doubt as to what Nazism actually is.
Me neither, I was just considering a hypothetical. Like, could someone say "sure, I consider myself a member of the Nazi party but my chapter has ditched the whole 'gas the Jews' part of the curriculum."
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 10:33 AM   #330
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Serious question: is intolerance towards gay people, for example, a core tenet of Nazi ideology? Or could someone be part Nazi? It might sound silly, but it's like asking of veneration of the Virgin Mary is a core tenet of Christianity just because the Catholics do it. Am I making sense?
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
With Nazism we have one instance in which it was implemented and that is what people today are saying they follow therefore anyone advocating for it is without doubt advocating for the mass murder of their fellow citizens (as well as removing human rights) . I can't see there being any doubt as to what Nazism actually is.

To determine what the core tenets are, it's simply a matter of looking to their foundational principles. In the case of Christianity, the foundational principles are documented in the Bible. Veneration of Mary isn't in there, that's a much latter addition from pagan sources. Likewise, other foundational principles like the Athanasian Creed and Apostles' Creed do not mention it.

Likewise with Naziism, we have Mein Kampf, and the various other writings of the Nazi leadership, which were implemented and adhered to by both the leadership and the rank-and-file. Extermination of undesirables -- including but not limited to the Jews, although they are a primary focus of said extermination policy -- is well-documented in those writings as a foundational principle of their worldview and practice. Anyone claiming to be a Nazi can be expected to advocate for the extermination of those undesirables at the very least. And that is, in fact, what we see in neo-Nazi groups and propaganda outlets like Stormfront, Aryan Nation, The Daily Stormer, and so on.

And to forestall the overused, tired, worn-out objection from certain other parties to this thread... to say that "they're not real Nazis" because they weren't part of the Third Reich regime during the period in German from 1933 to 1945 is the same as saying someone can't be a Christian or Muslim or Buddhist because they were not alive at the time and place of Christ, Mohammad, or Siddhartha Gautama; or that they cannot be true libertarians because they did not learn at the feet of John Locke, Thomas Paine, and William Godwin.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.

Last edited by luchog; 11th April 2019 at 10:56 AM.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 10:45 AM   #331
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,043
Fair point.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 11:39 AM   #332
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Me neither, I was just considering a hypothetical. Like, could someone say "sure, I consider myself a member of the Nazi party but my chapter has ditched the whole 'gas the Jews' part of the curriculum."
But why would such a person describe themselves as a Nazi?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 11:48 AM   #333
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,794
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But why would such a person describe themselves as a Nazi?
They might for instance be holocaust deniers, which is actually not uncommon as I understand in some neo-Nazi circles.

"The original Nazi party didn't gas any Jews, neither would we".

Remember that the final solution was not the public face of the Nazi party even as it was being carried out.

They might, like some modern KKK acknowledge the history but say they've moved on to more non-violent ways of advocating for racial and cultural purity.

They might, like some alt right folks, be playing snarky insincere games of plausible deniability. "I was just joking when I did the Nazi salute lol".
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 11:54 AM   #334
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Here's the problem, from my point of view.

The meta-debate about to what degree society should tolerate/encourage "bad" speech (shelving how we define it for the moment) gives a proxy bit of legitimacy to the bad speech.

We don't have to bend over backwards to have the "Where is the line, slippery slope, who watches the watchmen" hand wringing everytime Johnny Nazi stands up and does the whole "Hey I'm just exercising my right to talk about annihilating Jews like animals" routine.

Putting me effort into keeping the "What do we do with bad speech?" debate away from the actual bad speech so it doesn't turn into a bunch of try-hard edge-lords defending the worst of the worst would help.
To someone your point of view is as bad as theirs, letting the government decide who can talk is like saying kicking someone in the nuts should be allowed in MMA. It's a great idea if you feel you can use it, but you realize why it isn't done once it happens to you.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 11:56 AM   #335
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Wow. There is a great deal of history to demonstrate the untruth of that. Fascism, racism, conspiracy theories, anti-vax, totalitarianism, religion, all of these are Ideas. It's precisely these ideas that cause people to do harmful things. Want to take a guess how many people were inspired to commit violence by the idea that Jewish people eat Christian babies and control the world's economy? By the idea that black people are subhuman violent animals?

Or are you insisting that actions exist in a vacuum, uninfluenced by any mental processes?
People are responsible for their actions, which includes what they do with ideas. No one could magically convince me to kill Jews, if I wanted to though I'd likely jump on the bandwagon should the chance arise.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 11:59 AM   #336
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
There's a huge grey area between "We have to accept and embrace all ideas" and "Government jackbooted thugs will drag you away in the middle of the night to be reprogrammed if you don't follow the government line."

It's called "Being wrong" and it used to be a thing I thought we all agreed was a thing that could happen.

2+2=5 is not outlawed. It's not hate speech. It's not illegal to think. But it's still not an open and accepted idea because it's wrong. We don't have a bunch of try-hards demanding we have the "What does 2+2 equal?" talk again so we don't "get too comfortable and it's important to challenge our ideas."
No one is trying to ban people from saying that though.

If we had people saying they want to ban people from saying that is fight just as hard. Why? Because once we allow this I know it can and will be used against me.

If you think somehow all the conservatives in government wouldn't use this to silence us, I envy your ignorance at politics.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 12:02 PM   #337
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Nobody is advocating taking it away.

We are pointing out that we limit free speech already and suggesting that is absolutely the right thing to do because it can cause harm to individuals and society as a whole.

Let's say I fall out with my neighbour Bob over his trees growing into my garden. Absolute free speech would allow me to follow him around the streets shouting 'Bob is a rapist, he raped my sister' to publish these accusations in newspapers, on billboards, to put them on social media, to go to his place of work or write to his employers and tell them Bob is a rapist. To write to all his relatives with this accusation.

And your comeback would and could only be that all of those people should be wise enough to do the work to realise that the accusations are unfounded and that Bob should just put up with up because free speech is sacrosanct.

I don't think even you would support that.
Actually he would just have to sue for libel (assuming the accusations were not true) , providing a very high penalty for your stunt.

Said penalty is also geared toward the impact your statement made so the more effort the worse it will be. Laws exist, realize this.
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 12:03 PM   #338
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,043
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But why would such a person describe themselves as a Nazi?
Hey, beats me. Maybe they think the core of Nazism doesn't include that.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 12:03 PM   #339
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,457
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
They might for instance be holocaust deniers, which is actually not uncommon as I understand in some neo-Nazi circles.

"The original Nazi party didn't gas any Jews, neither would we".

Remember that the final solution was not the public face of the Nazi party even as it was being carried out.

They might, like some modern KKK acknowledge the history but say they've moved on to more non-violent ways of advocating for racial and cultural purity.

They might, like some alt right folks, be playing snarky insincere games of plausible deniability. "I was just joking when I did the Nazi salute lol".
I would suggest something like:

Don't be stupid and call yourself a Nazi then since Nazi means an idealogy that mass kills your fellow citizens.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 12:05 PM   #340
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 11,190
Originally Posted by DragonLady View Post
I'm sorry, but I disagree. Throughout history, plenty of people were right, but didn't take action because their views were wildly unpopular. They couldn't possibly shout over the pervasive ideology of the time, and if they tried they were shunned or worse.

So they said nothing, and terrible mistakes were made, and continued being made.
So... they should have spoken up, convinced others, and created a different social/political/scientific consensus. Methinks you prove my point; thanks. "Being right" is never enough, always requiring confirmation or refutation to be useful. That's how good science enters the body of science, how Popes are elected, how absolutists (ironically) decide who is "purest" to be leader:consensus. Not recognizing that critical step is what allows madmen to kill outright in the name of Truth.
__________________
Driftwood on an empty shore of the sea of meaninglessness. Irrelevant, weightless, inconsequential moment of existential hubris on the fast track to oblivion.
His real name is Count Douchenozzle von Stenchfahrter und Lichtendicks. - shemp
Hlafordlaes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 12:08 PM   #341
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,457
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Hey, beats me. Maybe they think the core of Nazism doesn't include that.
Other laws don't allow stupidity to be an excuse....
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 12:11 PM   #342
sadhatter
Philosopher
 
sadhatter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 8,694
"We are not right because the enemy is wrong, you are wrong because I am right is a schoolyard squabble. Prove you are right by attacking the enemy with unassailable facts and destroy their ideas on the battlefield, that is the lasting victory of logic not the brief vindication on stepping on a single throat. "
sadhatter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th April 2019, 12:16 PM   #343
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,457
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
"We are not right because the enemy is wrong, you are wrong because I am right is a schoolyard squabble. Prove you are right by attacking the enemy with unassailable facts and destroy their ideas on the battlefield, that is the lasting victory of logic not the brief vindication on stepping on a single throat. "
You think we still need to discuss whether it is a good idea to mass kill millions of our fellow citizens based on pseudoscience and hatred of the other or not? I had thought we had settled that question.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 03:13 AM   #344
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
No one could magically convince me to kill Jews, .
And yet all of the evidence points to this simply being wrong. Had you been raised in an environment where Jews were othered, dehumanised, villified and blamed for everything wrong in society then yes, you very much could be.

I notice this a lot with people, they severely overestimate their own abilities to not be influenced by their environment and the messages they receive on a daily basis and then wrongly assume that others should be able to do it too.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 03:17 AM   #345
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
Actually he would just have to sue for libel (assuming the accusations were not true) , providing a very high penalty for your stunt.

Said penalty is also geared toward the impact your statement made so the more effort the worse it will be. Laws exist, realize this.
Libel is a limitation on freedom of speech and as such would be opposed by those who believe in complete freedom of speech

He would also need to have the resources to sue me.

And in the US I believe the onus would be on him to prove it isn't true.

In other words, exactly as I said, those with the money and power could silence others and those without would just have to suffer.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 03:18 AM   #346
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by sadhatter View Post
"We are not right because the enemy is wrong, you are wrong because I am right is a schoolyard squabble. Prove you are right by attacking the enemy with unassailable facts and destroy their ideas on the battlefield, that is the lasting victory of logic not the brief vindication on stepping on a single throat. "
Which would be a great statement if facts actually worked to destroy false ideas. Again evidence of history and present day suggests not so much.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 05:36 AM   #347
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,574
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Which would be a great statement if facts actually worked to destroy false ideas. Again evidence of history and present day suggests not so much.
Why are you even on a skeptic board?

How defeatist. How lacking in hope. How dismissive of the power of good ideas.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 05:38 AM   #348
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,187
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Which would be a great statement if facts actually worked to destroy false ideas. Again evidence of history and present day suggests not so much.
I think history shows the exact opposite. Both in science and moral philosophy.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 05:50 AM   #349
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,574
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I think history shows the exact opposite. Both in science and moral philosophy.
Exactly

This board was set up for that
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 06:01 AM   #350
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
 
uke2se's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 13,426
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I think history shows the exact opposite. Both in science and moral philosophy.
Not in politics.

It's taken a world war to stop a political philosophy in the past. No amount of words sufficed.
__________________
Before you say something stupid about climate change, check this list.

"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. " Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1
uke2se is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 06:12 AM   #351
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,187
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Not in politics.

It's taken a world war to stop a political philosophy in the past. No amount of words sufficed.
I will grant you that words are not always sufficient. But the trend worldwide has been toward more enlightened views that square with reality. Women really aren't inferior to men, and slowly over the course of the 20th century political philosophies had to come to grips with that fact. There is no hierarchy of races, and again slowly political philosophies have been faced with that fact and had to change because of the reality of it.

On the scale of a human life these changes can seem both painfully slow and also sometimes the trend can disappear into the noise. But on the scale of history we really are living in a golden age brought on by the exchanging of and competition between ideas.

We haven't reached some perfect utopia, but the general trend has been a positive one, because when ideas are tested against each other true ideas have an inherent advantage. That doesn't mean no other factors matter: Lysenkoism survived for a while because of some contingent realities of the political situation in which it arose, for instance.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 06:15 AM   #352
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,574
Originally Posted by uke2se View Post
Not in politics.

It's taken a world war to stop a political philosophy in the past. No amount of words sufficed.
You are conflating the struggle against two linked but distinct things:
- german tanks rolling over Europe
- nazism as a philosophy
It definitely took a war to stop the enemy tanks.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 06:22 AM   #353
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I think history shows the exact opposite.
Really?

That's why there are no Mormons anymore then?
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 06:29 AM   #354
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,187
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Really?

That's why there are no Mormons anymore then?
It's why in 1978 black people were allowed to be priests within Mormonism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...mon_priesthood

Mormonism is a large collection of mostly bad ideas. But like most of our culture, those ideas are slowly changing over time, and for the better. And that's because people are engaging with each other within the confines of reality.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 06:30 AM   #355
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,574
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Really?

That's why there are no Mormons anymore then?
Mormon is only a letter away from moron. But is a small minority believing something kooky (but not harmful) something to curtail free speech and debate over?

If the cost of free civic discussion is that a few people are Mormons, Ill take that deal.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 07:40 AM   #356
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
It's why in 1978 black people were allowed to be priests within Mormonism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_...mon_priesthood

Mormonism is a large collection of mostly bad ideas. But like most of our culture, those ideas are slowly changing over time, and for the better. And that's because people are engaging with each other within the confines of reality.
Mormonism is demonstrably false and the facts are out there that show this. And yet as a philosophy it continues to grow.

And that's just one example.

In an era of fake news it is simply hopelessly naive to believe that 'truth will trump fiction'.

The ideas which are victorious are those which have the greatest resources behind them to propagate them. Regardless of their veracity.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 07:43 AM   #357
Archie Gemmill Goal
Philosopher
 
Archie Gemmill Goal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 6,940
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Mormon is only a letter away from moron. But is a small minority believing something kooky (but not harmful) something to curtail free speech and debate over?
It's simply an example of one amongst many wrong ideas that flourish in the face of factual evidence to the contrary.

Quote:
If the cost of free civic discussion is that a few people are Mormons, Ill take that deal.
Well that isn't the deal at all.
__________________
"I love sex and drugs and sausage rolls
But nothing compares to Archie Gemmill's goal"
Archie Gemmill Goal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 07:44 AM   #358
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 87,043
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Mormonism is demonstrably false and the facts are out there that show this. And yet as a philosophy it continues to grow.

And that's just one example.
Obviously, objective reality is overrated!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 07:48 AM   #359
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 13,187
Originally Posted by Archie Gemmill Goal View Post
Mormonism is demonstrably false and the facts are out there that show this. And yet as a philosophy it continues to grow.

And that's just one example.

In an era of fake news it is simply hopelessly naive to believe that 'truth will trump fiction'.

The ideas which are victorious are those which have the greatest resources behind them to propagate them. Regardless of their veracity.
Are you arguing that the trend (say over the last century) has not been toward a more accurate view of the world?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th April 2019, 07:53 AM   #360
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,794
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I will grant you that words are not always sufficient. But the trend worldwide has been toward more enlightened views that square with reality.
I don't want to say there are no such trends, but there is significant bias that lends to their appearance.

I remember as a kid growing up in the 80s looking back to the ridiculous fashions of the 60s and 70s and thinking "People eventually see dumb fads for what they are, thank god we wear reasonable clothes now". Most adults grow out of that and come to the realization that all fashion is arbitrary, but we preserve a similar sort of blinders for issues around morality.

If you live in the present, as we all do, then statistically, you're likely to agree with popular ideas of the time and disagree with ideas of the past which are different. Since ideas change in increments, this will always look like progress.

And even if the arc of time does bend towards truth and goodness, there are certainly sidesteps and backslides. How dire do that have to be that we can't shrug our shoulders and say "we're basically headed in the right direction" 50 years ago, Iran was a lot closer to the western world in terms of gender equality and freedom of expression. Now young women can get pulled into a van and beaten for wearing lipstick. And it doesn't look like that's changing soon. So that's a backslide that's lasted a lifetime and doesn't seem to be going away. I'm not saying that censorship specifically would have avoided the supremacy of those bad ideas, but it's at least an example of bad ideas bending against the supposed forward march towards truth and justice in a way that has lasted half a century and will continue.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.