4 ms·

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 bridg

by 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 6y 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 6y 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.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    I'm sorry if the tone of this response is a tad vexxed but how many times will I need to repeat that I wasn't the one who made the claim nor used the word? The Socratic method[1] is well known as an effective means of uncovering the problems in a line of reasoning. As I'm the one using it you can safely assume I have found a problem in the line of reasoning and am attempting to uncover it. To point out to me that there are problems with the line of reasoning and then attribute them somehow to me is, frankly, a bit dense. The "facetious[ness]" of my question, as you put it, is simply part of the method, which is not facetious at all. If the challenge of a simple question cannot be met then it exposes the problem. Please do not bother me again with this, ask the person that made the claim to justify it. Thanks. Finally: > Should all speech always be lawful? No. As we've already pointed out, lying in court would be an exemption from protected speech. I can think of several others that are contentious (is following an order as a soldier a war crime?) and far more interesting than something as self-refuting as being pro- (or should that be anti?) "hate"speech. I will now exercise my freedom not to say any more, and not to listen. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method

by afiori 7y ago

brigandish 6y 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 6y 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.
- brigandish 6y ago
  I'm sorry if the tone of this response is a tad vexxed but how many times will I need to repeat that I wasn't the one who made the claim nor used the word? The Socratic method[1] is well known as an effective means of uncovering the problems in a line of reasoning. As I'm the one using it you can safely assume I have found a problem in the line of reasoning and am attempting to uncover it. To point out to me that there are problems with the line of reasoning and then attribute them somehow to me is, frankly, a bit dense. The "facetious[ness]" of my question, as you put it, is simply part of the method, which is not facetious at all. If the challenge of a simple question cannot be met then it exposes the problem. Please do not bother me again with this, ask the person that made the claim to justify it. Thanks. Finally: > Should all speech always be lawful? No. As we've already pointed out, lying in court would be an exemption from protected speech. I can think of several others that are contentious (is following an order as a soldier a war crime?) and far more interesting than something as self-refuting as being pro- (or should that be anti?) "hate"speech. I will now exercise my freedom not to say any more, and not to listen. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method