4 ms·

I smiled at their George Washington quote; people who know George Washington's stance on free speech (e.g. his support for the Sedition Act) understand that he

by chomp 5y ago

I smiled at their George Washington quote; people who know George Washington's stance on free speech (e.g. his support for the Sedition Act) understand that he drew the line of free speech much more harsh than what we do today.

amadeuspagel 5y ago
You must smile a lot if you smile every time someone quotes someone else though they don't agree with everything they've ever said and done.
- chomp 5y ago
  Iron manning your own argument or appealing to authority are fallacious ways to make an argument. Boiled down, quotes usually are just propaganda. It's funny because if you're going to indulge in fallacy to get your point across, at least appeal to the right authority. Only problem with that is it's pretty hard to find an authority that doesn't believe in some form of the harm principle. The closest I can think of is John Stuart Mill, who said, quote: "Society can and does execute its own mandates ... it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough..." Which is along the lines of the views pitched here... and Mill _invented_ the harm principle! I do smile a lot. The alternative is a sinking feeling when I read sites like the one linked here that I personally feel like wouldn't exist if the creators embraced a little more empathy and understanding of natural rights.
  - amadeuspagel 5y ago
    Is the printing press compatible with this "harm principle"? With "natural rights"? Is the internet? Is wordpress? Would you deny the basic empathy of the people who created these things?
    - chomp 5y ago
      I’m not sure what your argument is. The technology you listed and nofilter are similar in that they are just tools. The creators are well within their rights to create anything they want.
criddell 5y ago
I'm not sure I would use the image of a slave owner when trying to make a point about freedom...
- ergot_vacation 5y ago
  Your ideology is flawed. Human beings are not divided into two camps, "Good" and "Bad." You do not slice the pie in two and and discard everyone in the "Bad" camp. If you do, and do so honestly, you will find in short order that you have discarded everyone who ever lived, or ever will. Humans are complicated creatures with many flaws and nobilities. Because of Washington's actions in both the revolution and his presidency, a vast number of people enjoyed far more freedom than they would have otherwise. Also because of Washington's actions, some people had to endure a life a brutal slavery. Neither of these aspects is untrue, or erases the other from history by its existence. History, and humans, are often messy and uncomfortable. Stop trying to pretend otherwise. It is possible for Washington to be both a hero of freedom and a disappointing oppressor at the same time. This is the paradox of the human condition. You're not enlightened. You haven't discovered some grand, hidden truth that all the world must know by pointing out that respected historical figures were flawed. We know. We've always known. We respect them anyway, because they did good as well as bad, and the good was a big deal.
  - criddell 5y ago
    You did a much better job than I did explaining why Washington is a risky person to associate with when trying to convey the idea of freedom. His legacy in that regard is too messy. And you're absolutely right - I am not enlightened.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - clairity 5y ago
    apparently washington was also generally a bad military strategist and tactician, racked by uncertainty and indecisiveness. he happened to get lucky in a couple crucial battles, otherwise we may have had no idea who he was. so luck strikes again, and washington the symbol is more relevant than washington the man.

by chomp 5y ago

amadeuspagel 5y ago

You must smile a lot if you smile every time someone quotes someone else though they don't agree with everything they've ever said and done.

chomp 5y ago
Iron manning your own argument or appealing to authority are fallacious ways to make an argument. Boiled down, quotes usually are just propaganda. It's funny because if you're going to indulge in fallacy to get your point across, at least appeal to the right authority. Only problem with that is it's pretty hard to find an authority that doesn't believe in some form of the harm principle. The closest I can think of is John Stuart Mill, who said, quote: "Society can and does execute its own mandates ... it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself. Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough..." Which is along the lines of the views pitched here... and Mill _invented_ the harm principle! I do smile a lot. The alternative is a sinking feeling when I read sites like the one linked here that I personally feel like wouldn't exist if the creators embraced a little more empathy and understanding of natural rights.
- amadeuspagel 5y ago
  Is the printing press compatible with this "harm principle"? With "natural rights"? Is the internet? Is wordpress? Would you deny the basic empathy of the people who created these things?
  - chomp 5y ago
    I’m not sure what your argument is. The technology you listed and nofilter are similar in that they are just tools. The creators are well within their rights to create anything they want.

criddell 5y ago

I'm not sure I would use the image of a slave owner when trying to make a point about freedom...

ergot_vacation 5y ago
Your ideology is flawed. Human beings are not divided into two camps, "Good" and "Bad." You do not slice the pie in two and and discard everyone in the "Bad" camp. If you do, and do so honestly, you will find in short order that you have discarded everyone who ever lived, or ever will. Humans are complicated creatures with many flaws and nobilities. Because of Washington's actions in both the revolution and his presidency, a vast number of people enjoyed far more freedom than they would have otherwise. Also because of Washington's actions, some people had to endure a life a brutal slavery. Neither of these aspects is untrue, or erases the other from history by its existence. History, and humans, are often messy and uncomfortable. Stop trying to pretend otherwise. It is possible for Washington to be both a hero of freedom and a disappointing oppressor at the same time. This is the paradox of the human condition. You're not enlightened. You haven't discovered some grand, hidden truth that all the world must know by pointing out that respected historical figures were flawed. We know. We've always known. We respect them anyway, because they did good as well as bad, and the good was a big deal.
- criddell 5y ago
  You did a much better job than I did explaining why Washington is a risky person to associate with when trying to convey the idea of freedom. His legacy in that regard is too messy. And you're absolutely right - I am not enlightened.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- clairity 5y ago
  apparently washington was also generally a bad military strategist and tactician, racked by uncertainty and indecisiveness. he happened to get lucky in a couple crucial battles, otherwise we may have had no idea who he was. so luck strikes again, and washington the symbol is more relevant than washington the man.