3 ms·
The existence of irrational numbers was dangerous. The Earth being on an orbit was dangerous. Non-royalty having legal rights was dangerous. The prole having
by ulucs 6y ago
The existence of irrational numbers was dangerous.
The Earth being on an orbit was dangerous.
Non-royalty having legal rights was dangerous.
The prole having legal rights was dangerous.
The idea of electing any public officials was dangerous.
Women having the right to vote was dangerous.
Not invading foreign soil to extract their natural resources was dangerous.
All of these ideas were dangerous and had severe consequences at the time, some challenged scientific norms, some social norms and some effectively undermined the state. You don't get to look back at those ideas with your 2020 hindsight vision and declare they were harmless now because they were radical, revolutionary and terrifyingly dangerous ideas. Why else would the inquisition kill so many people?
- runaway 6y agoThose were dangerous in general sense to the establishment's position of power. The type of speech being argued against here is immediately dangerous to the physical person of specific groups. That distinction is important I believe.
- dependenttypes 6y ago> Those were dangerous in general sense to the establishment's position of power How was the argument of legalization of homosexual relations a danger to the establishment's position of power?
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoI doubt that DanielBMarkham's comment meant that kind of speech. To clarify: If I say that homosexuality is morally wrong and a sin against God, is that "immediately dangerous to the physical person of specific groups"? Does the answer depend on the existence of at least one person deranged enough to take my statement as a call to violence? If I say that the police are murdering black people in the streets, is that "immediately dangerous to the physical person of specific groups"? If so, is the group black people, or the police?