2 ms·

> 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 tha

> 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.
- brigandish 7y 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

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.

brigandish 7y 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