3 ms·

Pakistan has a constitution. Appstores operate in Pakistan and comply with their government. There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different con

Pakistan has a constitution. Appstores operate in Pakistan and comply with their government. There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different constitution.

jshevek 6y ago
> There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different constitution You use the phrase "free speech" as if it referred only to a legal requirement, and not also an ethical principle.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  People disagree on the ethical principle of free speech, and arguing that Google or Apple have a duty to that ethical principle begs the question of the ethical principle itself.
  - jshevek 6y ago
    Begging the question is a specific logical fallacy which does not apply in this case.
    - jfk13 6y ago
      And to insist that "begging the question" refers to a specific logical fallacy is to ignore well-established present-day vernacular usage. In everyday discussion, pedantry rarely helps. In this case, it was pretty obvious what was meant. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/beg-the-question https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/beg-the-questi...
- vmception 6y ago
  Astute observation. Try not to shoehorn something that has no consensus into every legal issue. The entire discussion to me is as simple as I stated.
  - jshevek 6y ago
    > Try not to shoehorn something that has no consensus into every legal issue. Issues can be moral, legal, neither, and both. Presuming an issue is strictly legal can preemptively invalidate efforts to address moral aspects of the issue. If the moral aspect of an issue has universal consensus, there is little to discuss. This criteria shuts down meaningful discussion of ethics. Edit: Laws follow from values, especially in democracies. As values change, eventually laws change, including the constitution. The gp was raising ethical considerations for us to consider. To me it seems like you discount and trivialize these concerns.
    - vmception 6y ago
      Okay fine. The person I responded to made arguments that were primarily about hypothetical legal capabilities of western countries, in a bid to make us empathize on an ethical issue. Their argument failed because their analogies would have actually have to look at what legal route each country individually chose to accomplish their censorship. Which means looking at how Pakistan accomplished this censorship first. Pakistan has a constitution that supports this and requires the rulers to be arbiters of what is and isnt represented as muslim. The reality then is that I did not comment on an ethical issue at all because my comment was not about that and won’t be, because there is no mystery about the legal authority of Pakistan to do that and the path to consensus of changing that is so high (big assumption that I would care to do so or care about that discussion) that it is far outside of the scope of this particular discussion.
    - justicezyx 6y ago
      Usually, the assertive arguments on non-technical ideas are difficult to address. It's easy to identify the fundamental misconception in the argument. But the proponent is always very fervent on that point from the very beginning. That makes the debate more ideological and less rational. That's the conundrum of such debates. The balance heavily favors the first one who claimed the high ground, regardless what value that one actually stands for.
      - whynaut 6y ago

Pakistan has a constitution. Appstores operate in Pakistan and comply with their government. There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different constitution.

jshevek 6y ago

> There is no free speech analogy to countries with a different constitution You use the phrase "free speech" as if it referred only to a legal requirement, and not also an ethical principle.

shadowgovt 6y ago
People disagree on the ethical principle of free speech, and arguing that Google or Apple have a duty to that ethical principle begs the question of the ethical principle itself.
- jshevek 6y ago
  Begging the question is a specific logical fallacy which does not apply in this case.
  - jfk13 6y ago
    And to insist that "begging the question" refers to a specific logical fallacy is to ignore well-established present-day vernacular usage. In everyday discussion, pedantry rarely helps. In this case, it was pretty obvious what was meant. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/beg-the-question https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/beg-the-questi...
vmception 6y ago
Astute observation. Try not to shoehorn something that has no consensus into every legal issue. The entire discussion to me is as simple as I stated.
- jshevek 6y ago
  > Try not to shoehorn something that has no consensus into every legal issue. Issues can be moral, legal, neither, and both. Presuming an issue is strictly legal can preemptively invalidate efforts to address moral aspects of the issue. If the moral aspect of an issue has universal consensus, there is little to discuss. This criteria shuts down meaningful discussion of ethics. Edit: Laws follow from values, especially in democracies. As values change, eventually laws change, including the constitution. The gp was raising ethical considerations for us to consider. To me it seems like you discount and trivialize these concerns.
  - vmception 6y ago
    Okay fine. The person I responded to made arguments that were primarily about hypothetical legal capabilities of western countries, in a bid to make us empathize on an ethical issue. Their argument failed because their analogies would have actually have to look at what legal route each country individually chose to accomplish their censorship. Which means looking at how Pakistan accomplished this censorship first. Pakistan has a constitution that supports this and requires the rulers to be arbiters of what is and isnt represented as muslim. The reality then is that I did not comment on an ethical issue at all because my comment was not about that and won’t be, because there is no mystery about the legal authority of Pakistan to do that and the path to consensus of changing that is so high (big assumption that I would care to do so or care about that discussion) that it is far outside of the scope of this particular discussion.
  - justicezyx 6y ago
    Usually, the assertive arguments on non-technical ideas are difficult to address. It's easy to identify the fundamental misconception in the argument. But the proponent is always very fervent on that point from the very beginning. That makes the debate more ideological and less rational. That's the conundrum of such debates. The balance heavily favors the first one who claimed the high ground, regardless what value that one actually stands for.
    - whynaut 6y ago