ethical suppression of speech

[surreptitious57]

Okay but you are saying that you are RIGHT at the same time the other is saying that they are RIGHT
So HOW can you BOTH be RIGHT when you BOTH are saying completely opposite things ?

Obviously one of us at least must be wrong [ for it could also be both of us ]
But it cannot be that we are both right as that would be logically impossible

[Advocate]

Okay but you are saying that you are RIGHT at the same time the other is saying that they are RIGHT
So HOW can you BOTH be RIGHT when you BOTH are saying completely opposite things ?

Obviously one of us at least must be wrong [ for it could also be both of us ]
But it cannot be that we are both right as that would be logically impossible

Words become physical as soon as you verbalize them and when those sound waves with that set of amplitude and modulation changes reaches other people's ears it gets translated into physical effects they produce. Everything that exists in the mind also has a physical correlate and everything is part of the causality chain.

[Age]

Okay but you are saying that you are RIGHT at the same time the other is saying that they are RIGHT
So HOW can you BOTH be RIGHT when you BOTH are saying completely opposite things ?

Obviously one of us at least must be wrong [ for it could also be both of us ]
But it cannot be that we are both right as that would be logically impossible

Okay.

[Age]

Okay but you are saying that you are RIGHT at the same time the other is saying that they are RIGHT
So HOW can you BOTH be RIGHT when you BOTH are saying completely opposite things ?

Obviously one of us at least must be wrong [ for it could also be both of us ]
But it cannot be that we are both right as that would be logically impossible

Words become physical as soon as you verbalize them and when those sound waves with that set of amplitude and modulation changes reaches other people's ears it gets translated into physical effects they produce.

Like 'what' for example?

Everything that exists in the mind also has a physical correlate and everything is part of the causality chain.

Is the 'mind', itself, physical?

If yes, then HOW do you KNOW this?

Also, and by the way, are you suggesting that words alone can cause physical harm?

If yes, then how exactly?

And, has everything being part of the causality chain ever been in contention, by anyone, anyway?

[RCSaunders]

I think the suppression of speech question is closely related to the lying question; when is it permissible to lie. Free speech, like lying, is so valuable in so many situations that it is almost primary. However, there are situations where speech or true would bring on such negative consequences that suppression or lying is morally required.

Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone.

When you say "anyone" do you literally mean ANY one?

And, are you really 'trying to' suggest that when adult human beings talk to children human beings there is NO possibility ever that no matter what the adult human being says that this could NEVER harm a child, nor be a threat to the child, human being at all?

Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm.

Would you call 'creating confusion', through speech, 'causing harm'?

If no, then just maybe 'you' have been so 'non-harmed' by what you have been taught, and have learned, through speech, that you are still somewhat confused on what the actual Truth of Life IS.

Or, do you purport to NOT being confused at all?

Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm.

So, absolutely ANY one can say absolutely ANY thing to you, and this could NOT cause harm, NOR be a threat, of ANY sort, to you at all, correct?

Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise.

This is a different matter, so now we have two, correct?

To you, human beings are NOT compelled to do absolutely ANY thing in this Universe, by absolutely ANY thing at all, correct?

Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.

Yes, we are AWARE of what you BELIEVE is true.

Some of us, however, just wait patiently to see if you can actually provide any actual EVIDENCE and/or PROOF for your CLAIM and BELIEF here.

Yes, you would be part of some, "us," who, I suppose, like you, do not believe anything, but are still certain other's are obliged to prove what they say to you.

When my children were young they used to ask the same kinds of questions you ask. They were children, after all, and I'd try to answer them, but ignorance is very difficult to dissuade. They, like you, would respond to my best explanations, which any adult would have understand, by stamping their little foot and demanding, "can you prove it?"

When my children did that it was entertaining, but I assume you are an adult and should know better. Your questions are nothing but disingenuous sophistry.

[RCSaunders]

Uh, no. There is a view in the current zeitgeist that if you say something that hurts my feelings, that you've committed violence against me equivalent to physical violence. I think we would probably both agree that this is BS.

However, there are situations where words can reasonably lead to physical violence. If the police are at your door asking if you have any Jewish people in your house, and you have two in the attic, I believe you suppress your freedom and speech and lie.

Freedom of speech means you are free to say or write anything you choose and that you are not compelled to say or write anything you do not choose. Free speech is not a requirement to provide information to anyone else. Freedom of speech is total control over whatever one chooses to express or not express, don't you think? I don't mean such freedom actually exists anywhere, only that is what it would mean if it did.

Of course you are right about other's feelings, which no one is responsible for except the one who has them.

When you say "no one" is responsible for "other's" feelings do you literally mean 'NO one'?

How others react emotionally to what you or I say is their problem, though most of us are still careful not to intentionally offend others--it's our choice.

But WHY would you be " careful not to intentionally offend "others" ", especially when you are here suggesting that NO one is responsible for the internal feelings in ANY "other", and, you INSIST that ONLY non verbal 'physical actions' can actually cause harm?

If the latter part of this was actually true, then you could NEVER offend/harm "another" EVER with your words. So, WHY are most of you still careful not to intentionally offend "others"?

More sophistry!

[Advocate]

Freedom of speech means you are free to say or write anything you choose and that you are not compelled to say or write anything you do not choose. Free speech is not a requirement to provide information to anyone else. Freedom of speech is total control over whatever one chooses to express or not express, don't you think? I don't mean such freedom actually exists anywhere, only that is what it would mean if it did.

Of course you are right about other's feelings, which no one is responsible for except the one who has them.

When you say "no one" is responsible for "other's" feelings do you literally mean 'NO one'?

How others react emotionally to what you or I say is their problem, though most of us are still careful not to intentionally offend others--it's our choice.

But WHY would you be " careful not to intentionally offend "others" ", especially when you are here suggesting that NO one is responsible for the internal feelings in ANY "other", and, you INSIST that ONLY non verbal 'physical actions' can actually cause harm?

If the latter part of this was actually true, then you could NEVER offend/harm "another" EVER with your words. So, WHY are most of you still careful not to intentionally offend "others"?

More sophistry!

It doesn't seem to me that either the disingenuous or the invalid parts of "sophistry" in the vernacular sense apply. I think he(?)'s just hell-bent on deconstructing everything even when that doesn't get us any closer to a point. Irrelevance seems more appropriate.

[Age]

Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone.

When you say "anyone" do you literally mean ANY one?

And, are you really 'trying to' suggest that when adult human beings talk to children human beings there is NO possibility ever that no matter what the adult human being says that this could NEVER harm a child, nor be a threat to the child, human being at all?

Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm.

Would you call 'creating confusion', through speech, 'causing harm'?

If no, then just maybe 'you' have been so 'non-harmed' by what you have been taught, and have learned, through speech, that you are still somewhat confused on what the actual Truth of Life IS.

Or, do you purport to NOT being confused at all?

Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm.

So, absolutely ANY one can say absolutely ANY thing to you, and this could NOT cause harm, NOR be a threat, of ANY sort, to you at all, correct?

Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise.

This is a different matter, so now we have two, correct?

To you, human beings are NOT compelled to do absolutely ANY thing in this Universe, by absolutely ANY thing at all, correct?

Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.

Yes, we are AWARE of what you BELIEVE is true.

Some of us, however, just wait patiently to see if you can actually provide any actual EVIDENCE and/or PROOF for your CLAIM and BELIEF here.

Yes, you would be part of some, "us," who, I suppose, like you, do not believe anything, but are still certain other's are obliged to prove what they say to you.

When my children were young they used to ask the same kinds of questions you ask. They were children, after all, and I'd try to answer them, but ignorance is very difficult to dissuade. They, like you, would respond to my best explanations, which any adult would have understand, by stamping their little foot and demanding, "can you prove it?"

When my children did that it was entertaining, but I assume you are an adult and should know better. Your questions are nothing but disingenuous sophistry.

I suggest that if you do NOT have the PROOF to your claims, then do NOT make the claim BEFORE you obtain the PROOF.

Your children were very RIGHT in demanding 'can you prove it'?

If you could NOT, then you were doing nothing more other than just BELIEVING some thing to be true, when in fact it may NOT be true AT ALL. Your children, being children, were being far more WISER than you were ever being.

Also, my questions are CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, and that is all they are. And, if you can NOT or will NOT CLARIFY THEM, then do NOT expect your claims to be listened to AT ALL.

The actual Truth of them is ALREADY KNOWN, by the way.

Obviously you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to back up and support your claims. Therefore, they are NOTHING MORE than just your OWN ALREADY HELD BELIEFS, ONLY, which, from your perspective, may well being completely and utterly WRONG.

[Age]

Freedom of speech means you are free to say or write anything you choose and that you are not compelled to say or write anything you do not choose. Free speech is not a requirement to provide information to anyone else. Freedom of speech is total control over whatever one chooses to express or not express, don't you think? I don't mean such freedom actually exists anywhere, only that is what it would mean if it did.

Of course you are right about other's feelings, which no one is responsible for except the one who has them.

When you say "no one" is responsible for "other's" feelings do you literally mean 'NO one'?

How others react emotionally to what you or I say is their problem, though most of us are still careful not to intentionally offend others--it's our choice.

But WHY would you be " careful not to intentionally offend "others" ", especially when you are here suggesting that NO one is responsible for the internal feelings in ANY "other", and, you INSIST that ONLY non verbal 'physical actions' can actually cause harm?

If the latter part of this was actually true, then you could NEVER offend/harm "another" EVER with your words. So, WHY are most of you still careful not to intentionally offend "others"?

More sophistry!

Your inability to answer EXTREMELY SIMPLE and OPEN CLARIFYING QUESTIONS PROVES just how little you actually KNOW, and how much you actually BELIEVE, is true.

[Age]

When you say "no one" is responsible for "other's" feelings do you literally mean 'NO one'?



But WHY would you be " careful not to intentionally offend "others" ", especially when you are here suggesting that NO one is responsible for the internal feelings in ANY "other", and, you INSIST that ONLY non verbal 'physical actions' can actually cause harm?

If the latter part of this was actually true, then you could NEVER offend/harm "another" EVER with your words. So, WHY are most of you still careful not to intentionally offend "others"?

More sophistry!

It doesn't seem to me that either the disingenuous or the invalid parts of "sophistry" in the vernacular sense apply. I think he(?)'s just hell-bent on deconstructing everything even when that doesn't get us any closer to a point. Irrelevance seems more appropriate.

If what you, and/or the "other", actually have PROOF for your claims, then you COULD reconstruct my, alleged, deconstructing questions.

All I am really doing is just shining a light on how much or how little you REALLY KNOW.

All you, or "they", have to do is just back up and support your actual claims, with some actual EVIDENCE and/or PROOF.

If you can do this, then just do it. But if you can NOT, then so be it.

[Advocate]

More sophistry!

It doesn't seem to me that either the disingenuous or the invalid parts of "sophistry" in the vernacular sense apply. I think he(?)'s just hell-bent on deconstructing everything even when that doesn't get us any closer to a point. Irrelevance seems more appropriate.

If what you, and/or the "other", actually have PROOF for your claims, then you COULD reconstruct my, alleged, deconstructing questions.

All I am really doing is just shining a light on how much or how little you REALLY KNOW.

All you, or "they", have to do is just back up and support your actual claims, with some actual EVIDENCE and/or PROOF.

If you can do this, then just do it. But if you can NOT, then so be it.

As best i can tell they're is no argument which could ever make that would be considered acceptable to you except for mathematical ones. A claim always requires a certain baseline shared understanding of reality or it's an infinite regress of "prove it"s.

[Advocate]

Also could you name just one human being who says that words only which supposedly
hurt feelings ( as though that is some actual thing ) is equivalent to physical violence ?

The transgender You Tuber essence of thought has said this

There is no inherent difference in the amount of Harm done by one than the other, which is all that matters ethically. Any other distinction is circumstantial.

[Age]

It doesn't seem to me that either the disingenuous or the invalid parts of "sophistry" in the vernacular sense apply. I think he(?)'s just hell-bent on deconstructing everything even when that doesn't get us any closer to a point. Irrelevance seems more appropriate.

If what you, and/or the "other", actually have PROOF for your claims, then you COULD reconstruct my, alleged, deconstructing questions.

All I am really doing is just shining a light on how much or how little you REALLY KNOW.

All you, or "they", have to do is just back up and support your actual claims, with some actual EVIDENCE and/or PROOF.

If you can do this, then just do it. But if you can NOT, then so be it.

As best i can tell they're is no argument which could ever make that would be considered acceptable to you except for mathematical ones.

A completely and utterly WRONG ASSUMPTION.

A claim always requires a certain baseline shared understanding of reality or it's an infinite regress of "prove it"s.

Do you have proof of this?

If yes, then HOW did you actually obtain an infinite regress of ANY thing?

But, seriously, if a claim ALWAYS requires a certain baseline shared understanding of reality, then how about you CLEARLY EXPRESS what the ACTUAL, so called, "certain baseline shared understanding of reality" IS, from YOUR perspective, along with YOUR claim?

For example, with one of your many claims here, that; "Freedom of speech is broadly misunderstood", then what is your "certain baseline shared understanding of reality" in regards to this claim of yours?

[Advocate]

If what you, and/or the "other", actually have PROOF for your claims, then you COULD reconstruct my, alleged, deconstructing questions.

All I am really doing is just shining a light on how much or how little you REALLY KNOW.

All you, or "they", have to do is just back up and support your actual claims, with some actual EVIDENCE and/or PROOF.

If you can do this, then just do it. But if you can NOT, then so be it.

As best i can tell they're is no argument which could ever make that would be considered acceptable to you except for mathematical ones.

A completely and utterly WRONG ASSUMPTION.

A claim always requires a certain baseline shared understanding of reality or it's an infinite regress of "prove it"s.

Do you have proof of this?

If yes, then HOW did you actually obtain an infinite regress of ANY thing?

But, seriously, if a claim ALWAYS requires a certain baseline shared understanding of reality, then how about you CLEARLY EXPRESS what the ACTUAL, so called, "certain baseline shared understanding of reality" IS, from YOUR perspective, along with YOUR claim?

For example, with one of your many claims here, that; "Freedom of speech is broadly misunderstood", then what is your "certain baseline shared understanding of reality" in regards to this claim of yours?

That's only half the contention, and not the half that matters. The further contention is that my formation is more useful, answers more philosophical questions, is a better definition and understanding that does more work. Apply your skepticism to that and i'm sure you'll be more that satisfied. Your need for potentially infinite supporting details with any contention is an impossible standard. We'll get much farther by sticking close to the ordinary understandings of things as far as possible (so long as that isn't itself the point of contention).

If my arguments aren't logically salient to you, so be it. I come to offer an olive branch, not a laurel wreath. I know that i know The Truth as well as any human ever has and i feel no duty to convince anyone so if your search isn't compatible with what i can and do regularly prove, so be it, our paths must diverge.

[RCSaunders]

When you say "no one" is responsible for "other's" feelings do you literally mean 'NO one'?



But WHY would you be " careful not to intentionally offend "others" ", especially when you are here suggesting that NO one is responsible for the internal feelings in ANY "other", and, you INSIST that ONLY non verbal 'physical actions' can actually cause harm?

If the latter part of this was actually true, then you could NEVER offend/harm "another" EVER with your words. So, WHY are most of you still careful not to intentionally offend "others"?

More sophistry!

It doesn't seem to me that either the disingenuous or the invalid parts of "sophistry" in the vernacular sense apply. I think he(?)'s just hell-bent on deconstructing everything even when that doesn't get us any closer to a point. Irrelevance seems more appropriate.

Possibly. Generally, any attempt to rationally explain the rantings of the insane is futile.