4 ms·

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

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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
        > But then you see how speech can be destructive and dangerous. Name something that isn't dangerous. There isn't one because anything can lead to danger so that is a moot argument. I do not see how speech can be destructive because you're begging the question - it is yet to be shown that speech is destructive, my question still has not been answered. > 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. Which is why I would not prohibit the selling of drugs. > the significant help that people can obtain by "just talking" suggest that the opposite is also possible. Where did I claim that speech cannot be helpful or unhelpful? Obviously it can be. That doesn't mean that unhelpful or dangerous speech should be a crime. No harm, no foul. Show me where on the doll the speech touched you ;-)
        afiori 7y ago
        > Name something that isn't dangerous. There isn't one because anything can lead to danger so that is a moot argument. > it is yet to be shown that speech is destructive, my question still has not been answered. I truly do no understand your question at a logical level then. Is your point that speech is not a physical object and cannot be smashed against things, in an opera singer breaking a crystal glass the counterexample you are looking for? Do dolls have eardrums? This looks like a facetious interpretation of the question. We could apply similar level of deconstructionism to many other laws and regulations. The only way I can see this as relevant is to transform this into a conversation of whether governments have the right to pass laws at all? The question I would like you to answer then is: Should all speech always be lawful? Are there any kind circumstances where speaking certain things should be a crime? I guess we are trying to find a common ground, but I have no idea where you stand.

danharaj 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
        > But then you see how speech can be destructive and dangerous. Name something that isn't dangerous. There isn't one because anything can lead to danger so that is a moot argument. I do not see how speech can be destructive because you're begging the question - it is yet to be shown that speech is destructive, my question still has not been answered. > 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. Which is why I would not prohibit the selling of drugs. > the significant help that people can obtain by "just talking" suggest that the opposite is also possible. Where did I claim that speech cannot be helpful or unhelpful? Obviously it can be. That doesn't mean that unhelpful or dangerous speech should be a crime. No harm, no foul. Show me where on the doll the speech touched you ;-)
        afiori 7y ago
        > Name something that isn't dangerous. There isn't one because anything can lead to danger so that is a moot argument. > it is yet to be shown that speech is destructive, my question still has not been answered. I truly do no understand your question at a logical level then. Is your point that speech is not a physical object and cannot be smashed against things, in an opera singer breaking a crystal glass the counterexample you are looking for? Do dolls have eardrums? This looks like a facetious interpretation of the question. We could apply similar level of deconstructionism to many other laws and regulations. The only way I can see this as relevant is to transform this into a conversation of whether governments have the right to pass laws at all? The question I would like you to answer then is: Should all speech always be lawful? Are there any kind circumstances where speaking certain things should be a crime? I guess we are trying to find a common ground, but I have no idea where you stand.