3 ms·

> If you disagree with me, I will kill every poney in the world. The only real point there is that is an unlikely threat. I can ignore it. If a substantial num

by ErrantX 17y ago

> If you disagree with me, I will kill every poney in the world. The only real point there is that is an unlikely threat. I can ignore it. If a substantial number of people developed a long history of killing ponies and then made that threat I might reconsider. One of two things has to happen in my mind. Either we have to ignore the terrorists - which is my preferred solution, but I highly doubt the media will let us. Or we avoid inciting them for a bit as best we can whilst eradicating the problem.

inerte 17y ago
You know that blame means punishment right? I just drew Mohammed on a napkin. Do you think I should pay a fine, go to jail, something?... If you think "of course not, don't be silly", then tell me how can I know, prior to expressing my thoughts, if my work will result in a murder. What's a substantial amount of people, how much time is a long history? You're saying there's a line that speech should not cross, because after a certain point bad things will happen. Where is that line? You're being vague if you say "some people, long history, napkim is okay, cartoon in national newspaper is not". I want to be a law abiding citizen. Should the government publish a list of prohibited things to say? A civilian committee? Should I use "common sense" (as if there's anything common in 2 billion people and 2 major religions spanning 2 thousand years). Or will I only know if what I said was okay after someone killed? There are serious implications on who you choose to blame, I don't think you've thought this one through.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  > I just drew Mohammed on a napkin. Do you think I should pay a fine, go to jail, something?... You know that's not what I mean :) and it's unrelated. Also your definition of blame is fallacious because punishment does not always take the form of jail/fine (i.e. social blame, personal blame). Besides your action is not inciting; who will see it? If you now go into the town centre and happen to post it near a mosque athat has potential to be inciting. And you need to consider whether that is the sensible thing to do. (the answer is; it's probably fine because no one is likely to get killed) > then tell me how can I know, prior to expressing my thoughts, if my work will result in a murder. Strawman; there is ample precedent for media, particularly cartoons, to cause offence and elicit extremist response. > You're being vague if you say "some people, long history, napkim is okay, cartoon in national newspaper is not". I want to be a law abiding citizen. Should the government publish a list of prohibited things to say? Deliberately so; it's a personal choice, not something anyone else should decide! > I don't think you've thought this one through. You skirt around some good points - particularly with regards to "social interference" (i.e. a moral brigade deciding what is right/wrong to publish based on their feeling on what will cause extremist response). However I think you make a few fatal mistakes in rhetoric (mostly by building on increasingly shaking links); ultimately I'm not sure you've thought the counter argument through clearly.
  - inerte 17y ago
    Just to let you know I think we're in a point where the medium doesn't help either one of us to convince the other of anything, so I really would have some additional stuff to say (I do have the modern judicial system on my side, after all ;)) but I'm going to choose not do it right now, here on this board. Agree to disagree?
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      Heh, yeh good reminder.. I actually never thought it would spurn such a big thread. My fault. I suspect I've just not really put my idea out there very well. It happens. > Agree to disagree? Done.

by ErrantX 17y ago

inerte 17y ago

You know that blame means punishment right? I just drew Mohammed on a napkin. Do you think I should pay a fine, go to jail, something?... If you think "of course not, don't be silly", then tell me how can I know, prior to expressing my thoughts, if my work will result in a murder. What's a substantial amount of people, how much time is a long history? You're saying there's a line that speech should not cross, because after a certain point bad things will happen. Where is that line? You're being vague if you say "some people, long history, napkim is okay, cartoon in national newspaper is not". I want to be a law abiding citizen. Should the government publish a list of prohibited things to say? A civilian committee? Should I use "common sense" (as if there's anything common in 2 billion people and 2 major religions spanning 2 thousand years). Or will I only know if what I said was okay after someone killed? There are serious implications on who you choose to blame, I don't think you've thought this one through.

ErrantX 17y ago
> I just drew Mohammed on a napkin. Do you think I should pay a fine, go to jail, something?... You know that's not what I mean :) and it's unrelated. Also your definition of blame is fallacious because punishment does not always take the form of jail/fine (i.e. social blame, personal blame). Besides your action is not inciting; who will see it? If you now go into the town centre and happen to post it near a mosque athat has potential to be inciting. And you need to consider whether that is the sensible thing to do. (the answer is; it's probably fine because no one is likely to get killed) > then tell me how can I know, prior to expressing my thoughts, if my work will result in a murder. Strawman; there is ample precedent for media, particularly cartoons, to cause offence and elicit extremist response. > You're being vague if you say "some people, long history, napkim is okay, cartoon in national newspaper is not". I want to be a law abiding citizen. Should the government publish a list of prohibited things to say? Deliberately so; it's a personal choice, not something anyone else should decide! > I don't think you've thought this one through. You skirt around some good points - particularly with regards to "social interference" (i.e. a moral brigade deciding what is right/wrong to publish based on their feeling on what will cause extremist response). However I think you make a few fatal mistakes in rhetoric (mostly by building on increasingly shaking links); ultimately I'm not sure you've thought the counter argument through clearly.
- inerte 17y ago
  Just to let you know I think we're in a point where the medium doesn't help either one of us to convince the other of anything, so I really would have some additional stuff to say (I do have the modern judicial system on my side, after all ;)) but I'm going to choose not do it right now, here on this board. Agree to disagree?
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Heh, yeh good reminder.. I actually never thought it would spurn such a big thread. My fault. I suspect I've just not really put my idea out there very well. It happens. > Agree to disagree? Done.