some people just don't get it...

[Japher]

Agathon, that last post way too damn long.

Tell her to put out, shut up, or get out...

Skywalker, you are still young. Knowing what you know now will only get you a head (not some head, sadly) a lot faster than the rest.

Ignorance is bliss... what a crock, ignorant ppl complain about things all the time, and it is generally the most ignorant that complain the loudest (no offense Che )...

Anyway, you alone can't convince them of their stupidity. Life will have to decide that, and when they figure it out they will have to do all the grueling paper to register republican

[Agathon]

Again, an ad hominem fallacy is attacking someone's character as a means to establishing a conclusion.

So: "Don't listen to Bush, he is an ***hole" commits the fallacy, whereas "Don't listen to Bush, he is an idiot" doesn't.

And the ad hominem circumstantial, "Don't listen to Bush on the environment, since he has a vested interest in despoiling it" commits the fallacy if this is an attack on Bush's character (but in some cases this can be a sound method of reasoning).

Again: neither "Bush is an ***hole" nor "Bush is an idiot" commit any sort of fallacy, since these are claims and not inferences. Only inferences can be fallacious, claims can only be true or false (there's no such thing as a true or false inference).

[Agathon]

Agathon, that last post way too damn long.

Just take my word for it then.

Tell her to put out, shut up, or get out...

At last, a reasonable piece of advice.

[MrFun]

I think there's a new word we have . . . .

you are Agathoned when you find yourself reading a winding, unusually long tangent.

[Ben Kenobi]

people who want to impose their religious views on the law are theocratic fascists.

Agathon:

Are you saying that these prolifers with the shirts are theocratic fascists?

[OzzyKP]

I don't have anything to add, but you are absolutely right Kucinich.


btw, if you are a Republican, why are you named Kucinich?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by monkspider
Down with homophobes!

Fight the system!


PS Kucini, you are definitely hurting your chances of scoring with this chick with all this nonsense.

Different chick.

[Ben Kenobi]

Again: neither "Bush is an ***hole" nor "Bush is an idiot" commit any sort of fallacy, since these are claims and not inferences. Only inferences can be fallacious, claims can only be true or false (there's no such thing as a true or false inference).

So you cut your own throat, Aggie.

I assumed you were making a truth claim, that the reason these folks should not be listened to is because they are theocratic fascists.

Obviously, all you just did was blow steam, and not make a case for or against the ones wearing shirts.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Every society operates according to some norms. A liberal society operates according to the principle that people are free to do what they like as long as it doesn't harm others (Mill's principle). To that end we have constructed a series of rights as a rough guideline as to what is allowed.

(Side note: I find it incredibly amusing that Agathon is arguing in favor of something because it's "tradition" )

If you're going to use Mill, here's a nice quote: "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

Also: "First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common."

Racist speech does harm others, which you would know had you ever been the victim of it. Imagine if you were black and had to work in a place where posters detailing the evils of "******s" were everywhere.

So basically, it "hurts their feelings". Well, it hurts MY feelings that I can't say what I want! Or, it hurts MY feelings that the rest of you show disdain for my religion!

Most people agree that Mill's principle is correct and good arguments can be marshaled for it. It mandates a fair amount of tolerance (which is the central value of liberalism). But there are intolerant people in our society who make it their business to try to undermine Mill's principle. Usually they add a rider to it such as "people are free to do what they want as long as they don't harm others unless those others are blacks, Jews, etc."

And what would he say on that? Another damning quote:

"Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side."

The secret is that Mill's principle allows for a fair degree of tolerance except in the case of the actions of those who are intolerant of the principle. In that case it mandates intolerance towards those actions. If it didn't what would be the point of the principle in the first place? This applies equally to any society which is organized according to rules (i.e. all of them). A realistically free society will limit certain freedoms in order to preserve others. There is no such thing as an absolutely free society, for there would be no shared norms and hence anarchy.

See above quote.

Why would you ban it? Whose rights does it violate? I don't think there is any more reason to ban that book than there is to ban The Wealth of Nations. There's a world of difference between literary works that might lead some people to violate Mill's principle and actions which violate it by being the sort of actions that they are.

How does racist speech violate his principles, when he supports ABSOLUTE freedom of expression? Only laws against expression - which MAY be produced from racism, but are DEFINITELY produced from laws against racism - would violate his principles.

You seem to think that I am legislating my personal taste. That is not true. Every society legislates some norms, or it wouldn't be a society and couldn't function properly. It so happens that most of the time people saying what they like does not harm others, but in some cases it does.

You have never demonstrated that SPEECH hurts anyone.

No one could reasonably assert that racist speech does not harm its victims,

Of course one could. I do, in fact.

That old trick. No one is imposing a belief on religious people. It so happens that society is better off when there is a separation between church and state. People disagree over which religion is the right one. Those people who agitate for religious practices in the public sphere ignore the problem of whose practices we are to adopt (they just think it's theirs).

That's exactly what you're doing - agitating for people to adopt your point of view. It's called debate, and free expression.

If free speech includes the ability to paint a giant swastika on your house so that the holocaust survivors over the road have to see it every time they leave through their front door (this actually happened), then that argument fails.

You still don't have to look at it. Plus, how does it hurt you, to see the swastika? Can you demonstrate any actual harm?

Look, if you are a holocaust survivor or black, and the Klan is conducting cross burnings across the road, you will be scared ****less. Ask gay people how it feels to live in a homophobic society. It's not nice. Just because you are a white guy, you don't suffer this crap. But other people do. So ask yourself whether racists have more rights to be racists than their victims do to live free of racial discrimination. Racism is about harming other people. Preventing racists from committing racist acts prevents that harm - and by Mill's principle is entirely justifiable.

Racism is about harming other people, but it doesn't mean that advocating it harms other people, except inasmuch as it may sway people to another point of view.

Not according to Mill's principle it isn't. People can smoke pot without harming others or at least the question of harm to others is debatable.

No it's not. I think it definately hurts other people. Or, the other way, the question of harm to others from merely expressing racism is debatable.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So if someone started wearing a swastika armband, that would be peachy with you?

It's his freedom of expression, so yes. There is no opinion which is absolutely 'right' or 'wrong' so all opinions should be equally allowed. Then the people can decide which opinions carry weight with them, but even when one wins out, it still isn't absolutely correct, so those others opinions must still be allowed to exist.

So ask yourself whether racists have more rights to be racists than their victims do to live free of racial discrimination.

The right to free expression and free speech is more important than the 'right' to not be offended by racial slurs or messages. Btw, racial discrimination, in the traditional sense, is an action, not speech (ie, it is not intended to make a statement). The question of freedom of association is another issue entirely.

Kucinich .

[Pax]

Kucinich,
Why are you talking politics to women at school. Apolyton is a place for politics and school is a place for sex. Haven't you seen 90210.

[Qilue]

I saw a movie a few days ago (The Majestic) and this passage from it seems to fit here.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This quote also seems appropiate.

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

[Impaler[WrG]]

VOLTAIRE IS/WAS THE MAN!!

I agree with Kusinich for the most part, but I do agree with the "clear and present insitment of violence" clause. Thats not ok as its purpose is to produce violence which we agree is not tolerable.

So "Boy I hate thous (insert slurr) (insert group)" Is OK

But

"Lets go kill some (insert group)" is NOT

[Theben]

Sorry, I'm with Aggie on this one, with the possible exception that most hate speech should be condemned rather than banned, unless it causes harm to a person or group. Then again, that could be what he is saying, and I'm reading too much of what the other side is putting in his posts.

You still don't have to look at it. Plus, how does it hurt you, to see the swastika? Can you demonstrate any actual harm?

If someone walked up to you and swung a knife at you every day, only to stop a 1/2 inch from your neck, would you feel threatened? Espec if you didn't know whether or not he'd follow thru someday? Where's the harm?

[mrmitchell]

swung a knife at you every day,

The Swastika is comparable to an apple, whereas the knife is comparable to an orange.

Understand?