3 ms·

> The foundation of Liberalism (I’m not saying left wing here) is that no one owns knowledge This is complete BS to begin with. "No one owns knowledge" is a ty

> The foundation of Liberalism (I’m not saying left wing here) is that no one owns knowledge This is complete BS to begin with. "No one owns knowledge" is a typical ideological statement without any merits or proof. It is an idea that you want to believe, that is based on nothing factual. Yes, you can have opinions. Tastes. Ideologies. Beliefs. And they could be true, or false, or changing, depending on where you are and how you look at it. They are all subjective. However, there are things in this world that are neutral to opinions and stands the test of time. Facts that happened in the physical world and mathematical knowledge, are two examples of such objects. They are the truth. They are absolutely correct. There is no room for "disagreement" because they are not subjective opinions. They are facts that can't and won't be changed. Math is always correct. 100% correct. From day 1 they are discovered / invented till forever. Explicit assumptions and theorems that followed by rigorous proof are absolutely correct. You can expand it later, you can discover more, you can enrich math. But as long as it is correct, it stands forever. Every single second you are using technologies based on mathematical knowledge that was proved thousands of years ago. They never failed, and will never fail. Facts, in the physical world, are objective as well. You can argue whether a killer is a good person or not, or how good/bad he is, but you can't alter the fact if he did pull the trigger and killed someone. That is a fact. Physics, based on a wider set of physical assumptions, can be viewed as close to truth, because they have stood the test of time by physical experiments and phenomena. There is a chance that they are not completely true and will be subsumed by more advanced theories, just like Newton's Laws, however, they are close approximations to reality. That's how we get the rockets into the space. By science. Now comes to my point. You have the right to express your opinions, even if they are harsh criticisms. But you don't have the right to spread false information that can be proved false by facts. You don't have the right to spread lies. You don't have the right to say whatever you want, however you want it. Why? Because statements against facts are false, are lies, and spreading lies can hurt and cost others' lives, sometimes millions or more. This is why there is law against spreading hate speech, against spreading extremist ideology against human race, against fraud and scams. Free speech is about being free expressing your opinions within the framework. Outside these boundaries, your speech becomes a weapon that can hurt others and that is not allowed by law and society. The fundamental rule in the society is simple. You have every right about yourself, but you don't have the right to hurt others.

nemo44x 6y ago
Yeah I agree mainly. But I disagree that anything, even math, is infallible. Anything and everything can be challenged and the person doing this shouldn’t be killed or jailed, etc. They can have their ideas challenged and refuted and made an ass of though. There’s no guarantees that your ideas will be gently excused. So you ought to have some great evidence if you believe something commonly agreed to be factual is not. The framework of liberalism - the very system that allows math and science to thrive - is that their is no authority. There is no plea to humanitarian feelings or egalitarianism that makes things right because they feel right. Ideas are free and freely challenged. Anyone can argue 2+2=5 but I doubt they’ll go far with it. You could say almost anything in Spain but if you spread blasphemy you would be killed because it was sacred and the word of God. Is this what you want? Those people felt just as right and righteous as you and we both probably agree they were wrong. It always leads to violence.
froasty 6y ago
That these facts inhere in the physical world (and I don't disagree) does not directly correspond to the beliefs of the individuals living in said world. Language exists and is the vehicle used to transmit beliefs about facts. This is why we speak of proof in the first place. The fact that person A died at another's hands does not directly correspond to the belief held by an individual that person X was the killer. This is why we have "beyond reasonable doubt" as a legal evidentiary standard. I agree that factual axiomatic truths exist in the physical world and are evident to individuals as factual axiomatic truth. The problem is communicating these as such without granting license to counterfeits. The most successful form thus far has been to let the facts speak for themselves to individuals as factual axiomatic truths. The least successful has been to establish unassailable dogma concerning what is and is not factual. The certainty that you and others present concerning your set of beliefs-as-facts-themselves is of the same species as other true believers throughout history. Historically, this has led to the suppression of the scientific method and an open society in favor of a prelatical and clerical class that determines by edict what truth is, often solely at the behest of the hegemonic power and not factual axiomatic truth. This is why it is preferable to have minimal rather than maximal control over the exchange of ideas concerning the nature of what constitutes a fact, let alone what those facts actually are.

nemo44x 6y ago

Yeah I agree mainly. But I disagree that anything, even math, is infallible. Anything and everything can be challenged and the person doing this shouldn’t be killed or jailed, etc. They can have their ideas challenged and refuted and made an ass of though. There’s no guarantees that your ideas will be gently excused. So you ought to have some great evidence if you believe something commonly agreed to be factual is not. The framework of liberalism - the very system that allows math and science to thrive - is that their is no authority. There is no plea to humanitarian feelings or egalitarianism that makes things right because they feel right. Ideas are free and freely challenged. Anyone can argue 2+2=5 but I doubt they’ll go far with it. You could say almost anything in Spain but if you spread blasphemy you would be killed because it was sacred and the word of God. Is this what you want? Those people felt just as right and righteous as you and we both probably agree they were wrong. It always leads to violence.

froasty 6y ago

That these facts inhere in the physical world (and I don't disagree) does not directly correspond to the beliefs of the individuals living in said world. Language exists and is the vehicle used to transmit beliefs about facts. This is why we speak of proof in the first place. The fact that person A died at another's hands does not directly correspond to the belief held by an individual that person X was the killer. This is why we have "beyond reasonable doubt" as a legal evidentiary standard. I agree that factual axiomatic truths exist in the physical world and are evident to individuals as factual axiomatic truth. The problem is communicating these as such without granting license to counterfeits. The most successful form thus far has been to let the facts speak for themselves to individuals as factual axiomatic truths. The least successful has been to establish unassailable dogma concerning what is and is not factual. The certainty that you and others present concerning your set of beliefs-as-facts-themselves is of the same species as other true believers throughout history. Historically, this has led to the suppression of the scientific method and an open society in favor of a prelatical and clerical class that determines by edict what truth is, often solely at the behest of the hegemonic power and not factual axiomatic truth. This is why it is preferable to have minimal rather than maximal control over the exchange of ideas concerning the nature of what constitutes a fact, let alone what those facts actually are.