4 ms·

Your ignorance of the distinction between cause-in-fact and proximate cause is not a matter of precision.

brigandish 6y ago
So says you but I disagree. Would you ban me saying so? At least I'm able to give an explanation where you make a bare assertion. Maybe not bare, you added some snark. Maybe that's why I wouldn't have your speech denied, I'm quite sure I'm able to defend my position. Maybe that's also why you wish for others to have their speech denied, because you aren't able to defend yours.
- danharaj 6y ago
  Is this really what you think passes for an argument? Honestly I would be more concerned if you agreed with me on anything.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    Maybe because I'm still waiting for my question to be answered. What is destructive about speech? Which object does it destroy other than ideas?
    - afiori 6y ago
      I am not sure what is the question you are asking. What do you mean by "destructive". Is it comparable to damages? For example I can fake evidences for a crime to frame and innocent someone and send that person to prison for many years. I guess we agree this is a crime. (and also a strawman against free speech absolutist) As another example you can start a revolution by planting seed of discontent in a previously serene society. If this does not answer your question then I am not sure what your question is.
      - brigandish 6y ago
        I'm not the one that originally used the word so I cannot be the one to clear up its use. My question is Socratic, to clarify the claim being made, and almost certainly to show it for the nonsense it is. Of course, danharaj does not want to answer because he can see the trap, which is why this thread is approaching the right hand side of the page and yet you do not know what he meant. > I can fake evidences for a crime to frame and innocent someone and send that person to prison for many years. I guess we agree this is a crime. Yes, we agree, because faking evidence is not about speech. Giving false testimony, in court, that is more to the point, although I struggle to think of anyone who is advocating for the right to lie in court, especially when they're not the accused. > you can start a revolution by planting seed of discontent in a previously serene society Such power! How do I attain this God-like level of manipulatory power over men? ;-) More seriously: people are responsible for their own actions. If I tell you to jump off a bridge and you do it, that's on you.
        afiori 6y ago
        But then you see how speech can be destructive and dangerous. > More seriously: people are responsible for their own actions. If I tell you to jump off a bridge and you do it, that's on you. The same can be said of drug dealers. We agree that speaking words never kills anyone, but the same is true for selling drugs, still we can agree that drugs contain incredible destructive potential. I feel like this is not an argument about the limits of free speech, it is about the validity of a specific argument. Going more in a personal sense the existence of psychiatric theory and the significant help that people can obtain by "just talking" suggest that the opposite is also possible. I do not think that the argument for free speech should be "all speech is always safe" rather it should be "this restriction will be misused in the future". Otherwise you are arguing for an anarchist position, which is fine, but it is not the status quo (or the status quo before hate speech laws) > Such power! How do I attain this God-like level of manipulatory power over men? ;-) Slightly facetiously, it is said that Germany sent Lenin to Russia in WW1 as weapon to start a revolution (not sure how true that is).
        brigandish 6y ago

So says you but I disagree. Would you ban me saying so? At least I'm able to give an explanation where you make a bare assertion. Maybe not bare, you added some snark. Maybe that's why I wouldn't have your speech denied, I'm quite sure I'm able to defend my position. Maybe that's also why you wish for others to have their speech denied, because you aren't able to defend yours.

danharaj 6y ago
Is this really what you think passes for an argument? Honestly I would be more concerned if you agreed with me on anything.
- brigandish 6y ago
  Maybe because I'm still waiting for my question to be answered. What is destructive about speech? Which object does it destroy other than ideas?
  - afiori 6y ago
    I am not sure what is the question you are asking. What do you mean by "destructive". Is it comparable to damages? For example I can fake evidences for a crime to frame and innocent someone and send that person to prison for many years. I guess we agree this is a crime. (and also a strawman against free speech absolutist) As another example you can start a revolution by planting seed of discontent in a previously serene society. If this does not answer your question then I am not sure what your question is.
    - brigandish 6y ago
      I'm not the one that originally used the word so I cannot be the one to clear up its use. My question is Socratic, to clarify the claim being made, and almost certainly to show it for the nonsense it is. Of course, danharaj does not want to answer because he can see the trap, which is why this thread is approaching the right hand side of the page and yet you do not know what he meant. > I can fake evidences for a crime to frame and innocent someone and send that person to prison for many years. I guess we agree this is a crime. Yes, we agree, because faking evidence is not about speech. Giving false testimony, in court, that is more to the point, although I struggle to think of anyone who is advocating for the right to lie in court, especially when they're not the accused. > you can start a revolution by planting seed of discontent in a previously serene society Such power! How do I attain this God-like level of manipulatory power over men? ;-) More seriously: people are responsible for their own actions. If I tell you to jump off a bridge and you do it, that's on you.
      - afiori 6y ago
        But then you see how speech can be destructive and dangerous. > More seriously: people are responsible for their own actions. If I tell you to jump off a bridge and you do it, that's on you. The same can be said of drug dealers. We agree that speaking words never kills anyone, but the same is true for selling drugs, still we can agree that drugs contain incredible destructive potential. I feel like this is not an argument about the limits of free speech, it is about the validity of a specific argument. Going more in a personal sense the existence of psychiatric theory and the significant help that people can obtain by "just talking" suggest that the opposite is also possible. I do not think that the argument for free speech should be "all speech is always safe" rather it should be "this restriction will be misused in the future". Otherwise you are arguing for an anarchist position, which is fine, but it is not the status quo (or the status quo before hate speech laws) > Such power! How do I attain this God-like level of manipulatory power over men? ;-) Slightly facetiously, it is said that Germany sent Lenin to Russia in WW1 as weapon to start a revolution (not sure how true that is).
        brigandish 6y ago