5 ms·

That's hyperbole. If taken too far, sure. But, if we took our attempt to eliminate murder too far, it'd be equally dystopian. Your statement is not unique to sp

by klank 6y ago

That's hyperbole. If taken too far, sure. But, if we took our attempt to eliminate murder too far, it'd be equally dystopian. Your statement is not unique to speech.

totony 6y ago
Murder is quite easy to define, whereas bad speech/bad argument seems so much more nuanced. I don't think it's an hyperbole moreso than the logical consequence of such a thought.
- jackson1442 6y ago
  > Murder is quite easy to define Is it? Would someone refusing to wear a mask, provably resulting in them asymptomatically infecting someone with COVID-19 be charged with negligent manslaughter? This is something that people have been debating. Many actions humans can take could kill another. Only a subset of these are regarded as murder/manslaughter.
  - klank 6y ago
    Not to mention the fact that our modern definition of murder is based on hundreds of years of trial and error. Is dueling murder? Is killing your slave murder? Is it murder if you get drunk and kill somebody with your car? etc. etc.
  - totony 6y ago
    >Is it? Would someone refusing to wear a mask, provably resulting in them asymptomatically infecting someone with COVID-19 be charged with negligent manslaughter? It is not murder. There's a concept called "Negligent homicide," but even that is relatively well defined and requires intent to cause harm. Don't want to get into the rabbit hole, and I am not in agreement with all the laws the US has, but the point is that "bad speech" is way harder to define than murder/homicide. Not only is it harder, it is arguably impossible to attain a good consensus on what it is. PS: I don't agree with the premise that we should regulate speech, but if you were to want to do it it would most likely backfire or be counterproductive because of these reasons
    - patagurbon 6y ago
      >Requires intent to cause harm Does encouraging people not to wear a mask (or just not wearing a mask) in the face of clear evidence and recommendations to the contrary count as intent to cause harm? That is, if I know doing something will cause harm but do it anyway am I engaging in negligent homicide?
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
NhanH 6y ago
That's not hyberbole. The difference is that death is well defined, "bad argument" is not.
- klank 6y ago
  The definition of murder is not simply death. In fact, what counts as murder and what type of murder is quite complex and varies by jurisdiction. It was not as simple as saying "no murder". We arrived at this definition of murder over a long period of time.

by klank 6y ago

That's hyperbole. If taken too far, sure. But, if we took our attempt to eliminate murder too far, it'd be equally dystopian. Your statement is not unique to speech.

totony 6y ago

Murder is quite easy to define, whereas bad speech/bad argument seems so much more nuanced. I don't think it's an hyperbole moreso than the logical consequence of such a thought.

jackson1442 6y ago
> Murder is quite easy to define Is it? Would someone refusing to wear a mask, provably resulting in them asymptomatically infecting someone with COVID-19 be charged with negligent manslaughter? This is something that people have been debating. Many actions humans can take could kill another. Only a subset of these are regarded as murder/manslaughter.
- klank 6y ago
  Not to mention the fact that our modern definition of murder is based on hundreds of years of trial and error. Is dueling murder? Is killing your slave murder? Is it murder if you get drunk and kill somebody with your car? etc. etc.
- totony 6y ago
  >Is it? Would someone refusing to wear a mask, provably resulting in them asymptomatically infecting someone with COVID-19 be charged with negligent manslaughter? It is not murder. There's a concept called "Negligent homicide," but even that is relatively well defined and requires intent to cause harm. Don't want to get into the rabbit hole, and I am not in agreement with all the laws the US has, but the point is that "bad speech" is way harder to define than murder/homicide. Not only is it harder, it is arguably impossible to attain a good consensus on what it is. PS: I don't agree with the premise that we should regulate speech, but if you were to want to do it it would most likely backfire or be counterproductive because of these reasons
  - patagurbon 6y ago
    >Requires intent to cause harm Does encouraging people not to wear a mask (or just not wearing a mask) in the face of clear evidence and recommendations to the contrary count as intent to cause harm? That is, if I know doing something will cause harm but do it anyway am I engaging in negligent homicide?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

NhanH 6y ago

That's not hyberbole. The difference is that death is well defined, "bad argument" is not.

klank 6y ago
The definition of murder is not simply death. In fact, what counts as murder and what type of murder is quite complex and varies by jurisdiction. It was not as simple as saying "no murder". We arrived at this definition of murder over a long period of time.