4 ms·

> my claim is that People don't care about your claims - you want to change fundamental parts of society for a view that perhaps isn't that well thought out. U

> my claim is that People don't care about your claims - you want to change fundamental parts of society for a view that perhaps isn't that well thought out. Until your claim is virtually everyone's then assume that many people that came before us with different views than yours on how to "shape societies" have though their things through and conceivably had defensible philosophical positions and benevolent motivations behind them. There's a reason why ACLU fought and fights its battles, sometimes defending deplorable groups like KKK, it's not because they above all else favor obscenities. > but the minimization of suffering. All parties everywhere have in some way claimed they are in favor of that. But you wouldn't want other parties, who clearly don't know how to "minimize suffering" properly, minimize your ability to proselytize on HN and elsewhere how to truly minimize suffering. So why should we let you minimize our ability to spread our views on that, as clearly we don't all agree that you know much about minimizing suffering?

sagichmal 8y ago
> you wouldn't want other parties . . . minimize your ability to proselytize on HN and elsewhere You are trying to conflate the words I've written here with antisemitism, by claiming they are both opinions. But this is reducto ad absurdum, both disingenuous and wrong. There is a clear difference between the two, an ocean of difference, which human beings are perfectly equipped to understand. It is possible to say "we don't tolerate antisemitism" and "we do tolerate pontificating about more just social contracts" concurrently. There is nothing impossible, or even difficult, about this.
- RaleyField 8y ago
  > the words I've written Which words? I'm confident you misunderstood something. > both disingenuous Throughout this thread you've been very creative in pissing people off. Don't assume malice in other people's positions, it's uncouth. Here's an ingenuous question - god forbid saudis ever did something objectionable, would my perhaps justified complaints be filed under banned antiwahabbist speech? If we start bartering on speech I doubt there wouldn't be endless streams of money to minimize their suffering and indignation. > It is possible to say It's possible to say that for now. I doubt it will be for long after bartering starts. Just look at the current environment and parties that are on the rise, do you think they look like they would favor any pontification that go against them if they had any choice?
  - sagichmal 8y ago
    > Throughout this thread you've been very creative in pissing people off. I haven't pissed anyone off. I'm presenting and substantiating an ethical worldview based on the minimization of suffering, and deconstructing the unethical worldview based on the maximization of free speech. > Don't assume malice in other people's positions, it's uncouth. I'm not assuming anything about intent, I'm speaking directly to consequence. When you write > But you wouldn't want other parties, who clearly don't know how to "minimize suffering" properly, minimize your ability to proselytize on HN and elsewhere how to truly minimize suffering. So why should we let you minimize our ability to spread our views on that, as clearly we don't all agree that you know much about minimizing suffering? you are equivocating "[my] ability to proselytize [a worldview based on minimizing suffering] on HN and elsewhere" to someone else's "ability to spread" antisemitism, which is obviously and transparently disingenuous.
    - RaleyField 8y ago
      > I haven't pissed anyone off. You accused me of being disingenuous. I'm sure your radical views irritate other people as well. > minimization of suffering Now I'm starting to think you are trolling. Me and others have pointed out that this is a egregiously nebulous thing to say. People who say that they stand for minimization of suffering are also the same type of people who say they are for all the things that are good without ever elucidating what their idea of good is. Pol Pot probably said he was for minimization of suffering. > you are equivocating "[my] ability to proselytize [a worldview based on minimizing suffering] on HN and elsewhere" to someone else's "ability to spread" antisemitism, which is obviously and transparently disingenuous. It's hard to play mental forensics of what went through your mind. I'm not. I'm not saying there's equivalency, I think you misunderstood me because you are under impression that you can control or predict what people will decide is an acceptable speech. If you could control that then of course sign me up for no antisemitizem and all the proselytization. And to repeat, I merely stated that you probably don't trust us to be your moral authority and we reciprocally don't trust you to be moral authority for us. Furthermore, realization that we can't agree on any moral authority is reflected in free speech protections and democratic system itself. Again, unfortunate side-effect of free speech laws is that we let people speak obscenities just as it's unfortunate side-effect that we let murderers go if we can't prove their crime beyond reasonable doubt.

sagichmal 8y ago

> you wouldn't want other parties . . . minimize your ability to proselytize on HN and elsewhere You are trying to conflate the words I've written here with antisemitism, by claiming they are both opinions. But this is reducto ad absurdum, both disingenuous and wrong. There is a clear difference between the two, an ocean of difference, which human beings are perfectly equipped to understand. It is possible to say "we don't tolerate antisemitism" and "we do tolerate pontificating about more just social contracts" concurrently. There is nothing impossible, or even difficult, about this.

RaleyField 8y ago
> the words I've written Which words? I'm confident you misunderstood something. > both disingenuous Throughout this thread you've been very creative in pissing people off. Don't assume malice in other people's positions, it's uncouth. Here's an ingenuous question - god forbid saudis ever did something objectionable, would my perhaps justified complaints be filed under banned antiwahabbist speech? If we start bartering on speech I doubt there wouldn't be endless streams of money to minimize their suffering and indignation. > It is possible to say It's possible to say that for now. I doubt it will be for long after bartering starts. Just look at the current environment and parties that are on the rise, do you think they look like they would favor any pontification that go against them if they had any choice?
- sagichmal 8y ago
  > Throughout this thread you've been very creative in pissing people off. I haven't pissed anyone off. I'm presenting and substantiating an ethical worldview based on the minimization of suffering, and deconstructing the unethical worldview based on the maximization of free speech. > Don't assume malice in other people's positions, it's uncouth. I'm not assuming anything about intent, I'm speaking directly to consequence. When you write > But you wouldn't want other parties, who clearly don't know how to "minimize suffering" properly, minimize your ability to proselytize on HN and elsewhere how to truly minimize suffering. So why should we let you minimize our ability to spread our views on that, as clearly we don't all agree that you know much about minimizing suffering? you are equivocating "[my] ability to proselytize [a worldview based on minimizing suffering] on HN and elsewhere" to someone else's "ability to spread" antisemitism, which is obviously and transparently disingenuous.
  - RaleyField 8y ago
    > I haven't pissed anyone off. You accused me of being disingenuous. I'm sure your radical views irritate other people as well. > minimization of suffering Now I'm starting to think you are trolling. Me and others have pointed out that this is a egregiously nebulous thing to say. People who say that they stand for minimization of suffering are also the same type of people who say they are for all the things that are good without ever elucidating what their idea of good is. Pol Pot probably said he was for minimization of suffering. > you are equivocating "[my] ability to proselytize [a worldview based on minimizing suffering] on HN and elsewhere" to someone else's "ability to spread" antisemitism, which is obviously and transparently disingenuous. It's hard to play mental forensics of what went through your mind. I'm not. I'm not saying there's equivalency, I think you misunderstood me because you are under impression that you can control or predict what people will decide is an acceptable speech. If you could control that then of course sign me up for no antisemitizem and all the proselytization. And to repeat, I merely stated that you probably don't trust us to be your moral authority and we reciprocally don't trust you to be moral authority for us. Furthermore, realization that we can't agree on any moral authority is reflected in free speech protections and democratic system itself. Again, unfortunate side-effect of free speech laws is that we let people speak obscenities just as it's unfortunate side-effect that we let murderers go if we can't prove their crime beyond reasonable doubt.