7 ms·

The point is we don’t know. We will never know which new knowledge is created and which new problems will be caused. But only by allowing open and free trade of

The point is we don’t know. We will never know which new knowledge is created and which new problems will be caused. But only by allowing open and free trade of ideas will we be able to quickly solve them. But to take your point and run with it…why is “because it’s ethical” a worthy goal? That seems to be circular reasoning, and also relies on one concept of “ethical”. How do we define what is ethical?

SantalBlush 5y ago
You already used your own notion of "ethical" in your original comment when you implied that stifling the creation of new knowledge is bad. Did you really think that just because you didn't use the word "ethical" in your comment, that it is devoid of ethical statements? That's not how it works. By suggesting that free speech has a "purpose", you are making an ethical statement. >The point is we don’t know. That's really not the point. Your whole thesis depends on your assumption that new knowledge is created. The contrapositive to your statement is that if no new knowledge is being created, then free speech doesn't matter; this is false.
- tdehnel 5y ago
  But new knowledge is always created as people solve problems which inevitably pop up. And the ethics of today are replaced with new ethics (knowledge) as people conjecture new ideas. This process goes one way. Free speech leads to progress. Using a contrapositive is invalid because I’m not making an equivocacy, I’m making a causal statement. Man drives car doesn’t necessitate that car drives man. And I’m not saying “ethics” are bad. Only that our current forms of them, like all forms of knowledge, will eventually be replaced by something better (see: all of history). Anyway, you dodged the question so I’ll try answering it for you: Your sense of ethic in relation to speech was created because people had the freedom to criticize the fact that ethics come from God/priests/kings/tribal elders/et. al and develop new, better forms. In this way, your and my ethical forms will be replaced in the future by something better.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    >Man drives car doesn’t necessitate that car drives man. Fortunately that's not what I implied, and you fail to recognize the error in your own reasoning. I'll say this one final time, and I expect you'll intentionally misunderstand again. Your point depends on the premise that free speech leads to the improvement of knowledge, which means that if a specific situation arose--even an isolated incident--where your premise of enhanced knowledge were untrue, then it follows that your conclusion that free speech is good would no longer be necessarily true. That is why your statement is false. The rest of what you've written is pseudo-intellectual fluff. >But new knowledge is always created This is not a given. You completely made it up. I wish you a pleasant day.
    - tdehnel 5y ago
      >This is not a given. Not with that attitude!

SantalBlush 5y ago

You already used your own notion of "ethical" in your original comment when you implied that stifling the creation of new knowledge is bad. Did you really think that just because you didn't use the word "ethical" in your comment, that it is devoid of ethical statements? That's not how it works. By suggesting that free speech has a "purpose", you are making an ethical statement. >The point is we don’t know. That's really not the point. Your whole thesis depends on your assumption that new knowledge is created. The contrapositive to your statement is that if no new knowledge is being created, then free speech doesn't matter; this is false.

tdehnel 5y ago
But new knowledge is always created as people solve problems which inevitably pop up. And the ethics of today are replaced with new ethics (knowledge) as people conjecture new ideas. This process goes one way. Free speech leads to progress. Using a contrapositive is invalid because I’m not making an equivocacy, I’m making a causal statement. Man drives car doesn’t necessitate that car drives man. And I’m not saying “ethics” are bad. Only that our current forms of them, like all forms of knowledge, will eventually be replaced by something better (see: all of history). Anyway, you dodged the question so I’ll try answering it for you: Your sense of ethic in relation to speech was created because people had the freedom to criticize the fact that ethics come from God/priests/kings/tribal elders/et. al and develop new, better forms. In this way, your and my ethical forms will be replaced in the future by something better.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  >Man drives car doesn’t necessitate that car drives man. Fortunately that's not what I implied, and you fail to recognize the error in your own reasoning. I'll say this one final time, and I expect you'll intentionally misunderstand again. Your point depends on the premise that free speech leads to the improvement of knowledge, which means that if a specific situation arose--even an isolated incident--where your premise of enhanced knowledge were untrue, then it follows that your conclusion that free speech is good would no longer be necessarily true. That is why your statement is false. The rest of what you've written is pseudo-intellectual fluff. >But new knowledge is always created This is not a given. You completely made it up. I wish you a pleasant day.
  - tdehnel 5y ago
    >This is not a given. Not with that attitude!