3 ms·

> We may not like the idea of people choosing different medical treatments than we'd choose, but that's their right. Even if it's a foolish behavior to reject m

by cauch 3y ago

> We may not like the idea of people choosing different medical treatments than we'd choose, but that's their right. Even if it's a foolish behavior to reject modern science, they can choose foolishness. The point I was trying to make is 1) the anti-vaxx discourse is spreading falsehood, the "violence against pedophiles" is not. The anti-vaxx is not just "opinion", is "demonstrably stupid opinion", while the second is "different moral than mine". 2) anti-vaxx will kill anti-vaxxer kids AND non-anti-vaxxer kids (because it will reenforce dangerous diseases). The anti-vaxx discourse is harming your innocent children, the "violence against pedophiles" will not harm innocent people (of course, you can imagine downward slide, but for sake of argument, let's say it's not the case here). You say that you are ok if people have different opinions, which themselves have direct impacts on people, but then, you say you are not ok if people have different opinions, because they have direct impacts on people. You have good point against the person having the "violence against pedophiles" opinion (and I agree with you that this opinion is not good), but you can build similar and exactly as valid arguments for the anti-vaxx one. So, it looks like that your choice of "violence is more deserving of censorship" is just you having specific moral opinion of what is worst and what is better. But other opinions are as valid as yours. So it's a bit strange to talk about "free speech" and explaining that someone is just wrong because they don't have exactly the same morals as you.

SamPatt 3y ago
No one needs to have the exact same moral framework, all they need is one belief: don't use violence. The fact that defining violence isn't trivial is a case for more speech, not less. I don't think you can build arguments against censoring anti-vaccination opponents which are exactly valid to those advocating violence. Our ancestors lived worse lives without modern medicine, but it's conceivable to abandon some aspects of our technology and not fundamentally alter our way of life. Whereas the normalization of violence always, inevitably, leads exactly where you'd expect.
- cauch 3y ago
  > all they need is one belief: don't use violence. That's dogmatic. In history, there were plenty of situations where this areas was very grey. What if you are in 1943 and that you need to defend yourself? Will status quo be ever reversed at the same pace, saving lives of thousands, if there were no extremists that made "moderates" look moderate and pushed the power in place to negociate with the moderates? I'm not at all advocating for violence, but your vision of "dont use violence is an absolute" is just simplistic. > I don't think you can build arguments against censoring anti-vaccination opponents which are exactly valid to those advocating violence Yes, I can, easily. The difference is that you are just going to say "no, they are not as valid, because my base hypothesis is that 'violence is never justified'". So, of course, FOR YOU, it will never be valid. > Our ancestors lived worse lives without modern medicine, but it's conceivable to abandon some aspects of our technology and not fundamentally alter our way of life. Whereas the normalization of violence always, inevitably, leads exactly where you'd expect. That's a good example: our ancestors went throught PLENTY of really violent time. By your own logic, violence is not that bad. You are also saying that any act of violence immediately implies a total collapse of any judgement, which is obviously not the reality. But that's beyond the point: you just show that you have an absolute (so it's strange to criticize others for different absolutes). Which is fine. But you think that your absolute is somehow smarter or morally superior as others, while in fact it is not really advanced and rather simplistic.
  - SamPatt 3y ago
    >That's a good example: our ancestors went throught PLENTY of really violent time. By your own logic, violence is not that bad. That's the opposite of what I claimed. You are keen to put words in my mouth. I point out that we can argue about defining violence properly and you imply that the existence of WWII challenges my beliefs. Not in good faith.
    - cauch 3y ago
      Your argument was that anti-vaxx cannot be that bad because we survived without vaccine. I'm simply saying that being violence cannot be that bad because we survived with very violent time. The second line is indeed the opposite of what you have claimed, but I reached this conclusion based on the exact same logic you used to argue that "anti-vaxx is not that bad". Again, I'm not saying violence is good or whatever. I'm just saying that your conclusions are based on your personal moral compass, and that this compass is not better or worst than others. When you say "we should decide of free speech based on how much call to violence it contains", you are free or doing that and concluding "I like this free speech cancellation, I don't like that one". But you cannot say "This free speech cancellation is fine, this one is not fine, because I happen to have the ultimate compass that tells what is good and what is bad in an objective and ultimate way". And if you don't say the second thing and in fact you say the first, then there is no problem: you just say you don't like it. Not that they are wrong, just that you don't like it. Personally, I think that some speech that do not call for violence are in fact creating situations that hurts more people that some speech that call for violence (for example a racist and anti-scientific discourse that explain that black people are inferior but that we should not harm them vs a discourse calling oppressed black people to resist, preferably not violently, but violently if non-violence does not work). I understand you don't agree and it is fine. But it means that there is no reason that we will suddenly do everything "your way" just to please you when your position is not better than mine.

by cauch 3y ago

SamPatt 3y ago

No one needs to have the exact same moral framework, all they need is one belief: don't use violence. The fact that defining violence isn't trivial is a case for more speech, not less. I don't think you can build arguments against censoring anti-vaccination opponents which are exactly valid to those advocating violence. Our ancestors lived worse lives without modern medicine, but it's conceivable to abandon some aspects of our technology and not fundamentally alter our way of life. Whereas the normalization of violence always, inevitably, leads exactly where you'd expect.

cauch 3y ago
> all they need is one belief: don't use violence. That's dogmatic. In history, there were plenty of situations where this areas was very grey. What if you are in 1943 and that you need to defend yourself? Will status quo be ever reversed at the same pace, saving lives of thousands, if there were no extremists that made "moderates" look moderate and pushed the power in place to negociate with the moderates? I'm not at all advocating for violence, but your vision of "dont use violence is an absolute" is just simplistic. > I don't think you can build arguments against censoring anti-vaccination opponents which are exactly valid to those advocating violence Yes, I can, easily. The difference is that you are just going to say "no, they are not as valid, because my base hypothesis is that 'violence is never justified'". So, of course, FOR YOU, it will never be valid. > Our ancestors lived worse lives without modern medicine, but it's conceivable to abandon some aspects of our technology and not fundamentally alter our way of life. Whereas the normalization of violence always, inevitably, leads exactly where you'd expect. That's a good example: our ancestors went throught PLENTY of really violent time. By your own logic, violence is not that bad. You are also saying that any act of violence immediately implies a total collapse of any judgement, which is obviously not the reality. But that's beyond the point: you just show that you have an absolute (so it's strange to criticize others for different absolutes). Which is fine. But you think that your absolute is somehow smarter or morally superior as others, while in fact it is not really advanced and rather simplistic.
- SamPatt 3y ago
  >That's a good example: our ancestors went throught PLENTY of really violent time. By your own logic, violence is not that bad. That's the opposite of what I claimed. You are keen to put words in my mouth. I point out that we can argue about defining violence properly and you imply that the existence of WWII challenges my beliefs. Not in good faith.
  - cauch 3y ago
    Your argument was that anti-vaxx cannot be that bad because we survived without vaccine. I'm simply saying that being violence cannot be that bad because we survived with very violent time. The second line is indeed the opposite of what you have claimed, but I reached this conclusion based on the exact same logic you used to argue that "anti-vaxx is not that bad". Again, I'm not saying violence is good or whatever. I'm just saying that your conclusions are based on your personal moral compass, and that this compass is not better or worst than others. When you say "we should decide of free speech based on how much call to violence it contains", you are free or doing that and concluding "I like this free speech cancellation, I don't like that one". But you cannot say "This free speech cancellation is fine, this one is not fine, because I happen to have the ultimate compass that tells what is good and what is bad in an objective and ultimate way". And if you don't say the second thing and in fact you say the first, then there is no problem: you just say you don't like it. Not that they are wrong, just that you don't like it. Personally, I think that some speech that do not call for violence are in fact creating situations that hurts more people that some speech that call for violence (for example a racist and anti-scientific discourse that explain that black people are inferior but that we should not harm them vs a discourse calling oppressed black people to resist, preferably not violently, but violently if non-violence does not work). I understand you don't agree and it is fine. But it means that there is no reason that we will suddenly do everything "your way" just to please you when your position is not better than mine.