|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 12, 2018 1:27:04 GMT
So, you would have no problem with someone yelling, " FIRE", in a crowded theater? Correct. As well as no problem with slander, libel, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, etc. I would really love to hear the argument for legalizing shouting "Fire" (falsely) in a crowded theater. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 2:04:39 GMT
In that case how would the law have anything to do with (free) speech and harassment? Or was that just a sensationalistic thread title? ...because previously, protesters exercising their freedom of speech, had been preventing free access to the abortion clinic. WHILST they had been exercising their right of freedom of speech, they had 'harrassed' by their blocking of free access of others to a legal activity. That would be a conflation. Speech isn't the same thing as something like blocking the entrance to a building, blocking a road, etc. And blocking a building isn't harassing anyone, speech or not. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 2:07:14 GMT
Correct. As well as no problem with slander, libel, incitement, fighting words, hate speech, etc. I would really love to hear the argument for legalizing shouting "Fire" (falsely) in a crowded theater. Ultimately there's no argument either way. It's a moral stance and thus, at least at root, whatever one takes to be the root, what someone feels about what interpersonal behavior should or shouldn't be permissible. |
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 12, 2018 2:28:19 GMT
...because previously, protesters exercising their freedom of speech, had been preventing free access to the abortion clinic. WHILST they had been exercising their right of freedom of speech, they had 'harrassed' by their blocking of free access of others to a legal activity. That would be a conflation. Speech isn't the same thing as something like blocking the entrance to a building, blocking a road, etc. And blocking a building isn't harassing anyone, speech or not. ...and yet conflation is exactly what you did four hours ago. IF you can't enter a building due to being blocked by people placards or in your face speakers, I think that constitutes harassment. Your freedom of choice to enter and access the facilities is hindered. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 10:38:31 GMT
That would be a conflation. Speech isn't the same thing as something like blocking the entrance to a building, blocking a road, etc. And blocking a building isn't harassing anyone, speech or not. ...and yet conflation is exactly what you did four hours ago. I'm getting my info from this thread. So like I said, you were conflating speech and other actions in your subject line/initial post. Non-speech harassment I'd say would be something like someone stalking you. Otherwise it wouldn't be clear what (at least illegal) physical actions affecting other people wouldn't count as harassment. |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 12, 2018 13:43:48 GMT
I would really love to hear the argument for legalizing shouting "Fire" (falsely) in a crowded theater. Ultimately there's no argument either way. It's a moral stance and thus, at least at root, whatever one takes to be the root, what someone feels about what interpersonal behavior should or shouldn't be permissible. On that basis, perhaps you also believe "there's no argument either way" when it comes to legalizing the interpersonal behavior known as murder. But if, unlike yelling "Fire", you DO have a problem with murder, then where do you see the substantive difference between the two?
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 13:48:06 GMT
Ultimately there's no argument either way. It's a moral stance and thus, at least at root, whatever one takes to be the root, what someone feels about what interpersonal behavior should or shouldn't be permissible. On that basis, perhaps you also believe "there's no argument either way" when it comes to legalizing the interpersonal behavior known as murder. But if, unlike yelling "Fire", you DO have a problem with murder, then where do you see the substantive difference between the two?
"One should (be allowed to) murder" and "One should not (be allowed to) murder" are also simply, at root, ways that someone feels about what interpersonal behavior should or shouldn't be permissible. It should be obvious that I'd say that, since I made it clear that that's the case with ALL moral stances. I feel that we should not permit murder. I feel that we should allow all speech. It all comes down to ways that individuals feel when we're talking about this stuff. We can reason "on top of that" so to speak, but at root, it's simply a way that we feel (where we either feel that it should be permissible (or that it should be obligatory, etc.) or we feel that it it shouldn't be permissible). |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 12, 2018 14:05:06 GMT
On that basis, perhaps you also believe "there's no argument either way" when it comes to legalizing the interpersonal behavior known as murder. But if, unlike yelling "Fire", you DO have a problem with murder, then where do you see the substantive difference between the two?
"One should (be allowed to) murder" and "One should not (be allowed to) murder" are also simply, at root, ways that someone feels about what interpersonal behavior should or shouldn't be permissible. It should be obvious that I'd say that, since I made it clear that that's the case with ALL moral stances. I feel that we should not permit murder. I feel that we should allow all speech. It all comes down to ways that individuals feel when we're talking about this stuff. We can reason "on top of that" so to speak, but at root, it's simply a way that we feel (where we either feel that it should be permissible (or that it should be obligatory, etc.) or we feel that it it shouldn't be permissible). The effect of yelling "Fire" is the infliction of death upon others. And that is the effect of murder. You haven't offered a substantive difference between the two that should lead anyone to think that, while murder should be impermissible, yelling "Fire" should be permissible. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 14:08:19 GMT
"One should (be allowed to) murder" and "One should not (be allowed to) murder" are also simply, at root, ways that someone feels about what interpersonal behavior should or shouldn't be permissible. It should be obvious that I'd say that, since I made it clear that that's the case with ALL moral stances. I feel that we should not permit murder. I feel that we should allow all speech. It all comes down to ways that individuals feel when we're talking about this stuff. We can reason "on top of that" so to speak, but at root, it's simply a way that we feel (where we either feel that it should be permissible (or that it should be obligatory, etc.) or we feel that it it shouldn't be permissible). The effect of yelling "Fire" is the infliction of death upon others. The word itself does that? (As a soundwave in this case, that is.) |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 12, 2018 14:36:04 GMT
The effect of yelling "Fire" is the infliction of death upon others. The word itself does that? (As a soundwave in this case, that is.) No, "the word itself" does not do that. And if I push you into the path of a train, it's not the push that kills you, either.
I asked for the substantive difference that could lead a person to oppose murder but not oppose yelling "Fire". It appears that you have no answer and decided to substitute obtuseness in its place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 14:36:54 GMT
The word itself does that? (As a soundwave in this case, that is.) No, "the word itself" does not do that. And if I push you into the path of a train, it's not the push that kills you, either.
I asked for the substantive difference that could lead a person to oppose murder but not oppose yelling "Fire". It appears that you have no answer and decided to substitute obtuseness in its place.
So you're claiming a causal chain? |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 12, 2018 15:32:19 GMT
No, "the word itself" does not do that. And if I push you into the path of a train, it's not the push that kills you, either.
I asked for the substantive difference that could lead a person to oppose murder but not oppose yelling "Fire". It appears that you have no answer and decided to substitute obtuseness in its place.
So you're claiming a causal chain? I'M claiming? The causal chain was both a universally accepted given and historically (& tragically) demonstrated long before I was born.
Furthermore, attempting to knock down ONE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE of death dealing speech is simply evading the larger point. I could think of some other hypothetical situation of speech causing death, and you'd STILL have to explain the substantive difference that makes that speech permissible and murder impermissible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 15:42:15 GMT
So you're claiming a causal chain? I'M claiming? The causal chain was both a universally accepted given and historically (& tragically) demonstrated long before I was born.
Furthermore, attempting to knock down ONE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE of death dealing speech is simply evading the larger point. I could think of some other hypothetical situation of speech causing death, and you'd STILL have to explain the substantive difference that makes that speech permissible and murder impermissible.
"You're claiming" isn't a phrase that suggests that the claim originates with you in the sense of no one ever having made it before. It's like saying, "You're claiming that God exists?" Obviously someone saying that isn't suggesting that no one has previously claimed that God exists. At any rate, so you accept that speech is causal to actions. I do not. How would you go about demonstrating causality in the face of a challenge that speech is not causal to actions? And as an ancillary curiosity, do you deny free will wholesale? |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 12, 2018 16:56:23 GMT
I'M claiming? The causal chain was both a universally accepted given and historically (& tragically) demonstrated long before I was born.
Furthermore, attempting to knock down ONE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE of death dealing speech is simply evading the larger point. I could think of some other hypothetical situation of speech causing death, and you'd STILL have to explain the substantive difference that makes that speech permissible and murder impermissible.
"You're claiming" isn't a phrase that suggests that the claim originates with you in the sense of no one ever having made it before. It's like saying, "You're claiming that God exists?" Obviously someone saying that isn't suggesting that no one has previously claimed that God exists. At any rate, so you accept that speech is causal to actions. I do not. How would you go about demonstrating causality in the face of a challenge that speech is not causal to actions? And as an ancillary curiosity, do you deny free will wholesale? A bottle is (known to me) filled with a clear, odorless, flavorless poison. A person says to me, "I'm simply parched. What's in that bottle? I answer, "Water". He drinks it and promptly dies. In your scheme of things, my speech should be held permissible. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 17:01:07 GMT
"You're claiming" isn't a phrase that suggests that the claim originates with you in the sense of no one ever having made it before. It's like saying, "You're claiming that God exists?" Obviously someone saying that isn't suggesting that no one has previously claimed that God exists. At any rate, so you accept that speech is causal to actions. I do not. How would you go about demonstrating causality in the face of a challenge that speech is not causal to actions? And as an ancillary curiosity, do you deny free will wholesale? A bottle is (known to me) filled with a clear, odorless, flavorless poison. A person says to me, "I'm simply parched. What's in that bottle? I answer, "Water". He drinks it and promptly dies. In your scheme of things, my speech should be held permissible. I didn't ask you the questions above rhetorically. (Obviously one thing you don't believe is that if someone asks a question, it causes the person the question is addressed to to answer.) |
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jun 12, 2018 17:09:34 GMT
A bottle is (known to me) filled with a clear, odorless, flavorless poison. A person says to me, "I'm simply parched. What's in that bottle? I answer, "Water". He drinks it and promptly dies. In your scheme of things, my speech should be held permissible. I didn't ask you the questions above rhetorically. And I won't waste my time explaining the obvious. My simple example of the bottle says enough. |
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jun 12, 2018 17:28:11 GMT
I didn't ask you the questions above rhetorically. And I won't waste my time explaining the obvious. My simple example of the bottle says enough. Right, and the reason you'd expect, in the wake of an attitude like that, for someone to go, "Cool. So let's proceed with a discussion then" is? I mean, are you used to being like that offline where people are amicable to you and conversational with you even though you have an attitude like that? |
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jun 13, 2018 8:32:09 GMT
@jdsouther
But what's considered 'hateful' by some liberals is not actually hateful. it's simply calling out a immoral thing for what it is. abortion is a immoral act. to get rid of the sugar coating... it's murder, and murder is a evil act. liberals make it easier for someone to perform that evil act. that can't be a good thing. but many are blind and don't see this truth and see it as a "choice" when it's really a basic life issue when you cut through the BS and get to the truth of the matter.
but with those more radical liberal types I suspect they fit inline with this...
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jun 13, 2018 8:38:55 GMT
@jdsouther But what's considered 'hateful' by some liberals is not actually hateful. it's simply calling out a immoral thing for what it is. abortion is a immoral act. to get rid of the sugar coating... it's murder, and murder is a evil act. liberals make it easier for someone to perform that evil act. that can't be a good thing. but many are blind and don't see this truth and see it as a "choice" when it's really a basic life issue when you cut through the BS and get to the truth of the matter. but with those more radical liberal types I suspect they fit inline with this... Yet when it comes down to it...the are differences of opinion and not an absolute right and wrong Hence one side of the 'equation' should NOT be able to break laws in an effort to control the other side of the 'equation'. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2018 22:14:40 GMT
@jdsouther But what's considered 'hateful' by some liberals is not actually hateful. it's simply calling out a immoral thing for what it is. abortion is a immoral act. to get rid of the sugar coating... it's murder, and murder is a evil act. liberals make it easier for someone to perform that evil act. that can't be a good thing. but many are blind and don't see this truth and see it as a "choice" when it's really a basic life issue when you cut through the BS and get to the truth of the matter. but with those more radical liberal types I suspect they fit inline with this... I talk not of a difference of opinion, but the use of religion to promote hate against a particular group, such as gays or other religions. |
|
