5 ms·
I think my statement is quite correct and your reframing doesn’t change anything about that. It is and remains a moral evaluation. Plus the believe of the axio
by arrrg 14y ago
I think my statement is quite correct and your reframing doesn’t change anything about that. It is and remains a moral evaluation.
Plus the believe of the axiomatic nature of freedom of speech just drips out of you. We just have different perspectives, I guess. No, I don’t think using violence to prevent speech always has to take away dignity. It does in the vast majority of cases, not every case, though.
- CamperBob2 14y ago"Arrogance?" That's amusing, coming from someone who apparently believes that it's moral to tell other people what they can say.
- arrrg 14y agoI believe there are a select few cases where it's moral to tell other people what they can say, yes. Your disbelief on this speaks to your moral arrogance.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- CamperBob2 14y agoYour disbelief on this speaks to your moral arrogance. My disbelief is the exact opposite of arrogance. I believe that my right to remain unoffended is less important than your right to offend me. If that's arrogance, then the term "arrogance" can have no useful meaning. It's like accusing an abolitionist of "intolerance."
- arrrg 14y agoYep, that’s exactly the arrogance I’m talking about. You are completely blind to alternative moral worldviews. You cannot even conceive of them. I suppose your thinking on this is parallel to mine on the death penalty. I cannot conceive of a worldview that includes the death penalty. I’m arrogant about that.
- CamperBob2 14y agoSounds like we've found common ground, then. I'm opposed to the death penalty for the same reason I'm opposed to restrictions on speech: because governments sometimes get it wrong.