Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you spoke the truth, or shot because you acted upon the truth – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this.
-
jayjacobus
- Posts: 1273
- Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:45 pm
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
Remember the movie (and book), "One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest." McMurphy wasn't shot but he did die in the end. He spoke the truth but he was antisocial because he provoked the person in charge. Try not to provoke the people in charge but get them out of control (somehow). They are a big problem (but not always).
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
It boggles minds the kinds of things philosophers recognise as problems.
It boggles the mind even more that getting shot is not one of the things philosophers recognise as problems.
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
You forget that Krishnamurti said, “If you live peacefully …”
When you live in fear of getting shot, you do not live peacefully.
When you live in fear of speaking the truth, you do not live peacefully.
Instilling fear and terror for speaking the truth is one way to eliminate freedom of speech.
Living in fear of saying the un-PC thing that can damage your life is not living peacefully. This lack of peace will affect health and actions, e.g., a pill-popping nation. Younger generations indoctrinated by the indoctrinated are more likely to confuse the ostensible with the actual, the unimportant with the important, and thus are more suitable for living at peace in the statist society identified by Nick-A.
Has the boggling accelerated?
Is there good and bad boggling?
Are you often boggled?
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
Great movie and book. Kesey is one of the great American novelists. Sometimes A Great Notion should get more attention. Same themes, more complex.jayjacobus wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 7:05 amRemember the movie (and book), "One flew over the Cuckoo's Nest." McMurphy wasn't shot but he did die in the end. He spoke the truth but he was antisocial because he provoked the person in charge. Try not to provoke the people in charge but get them out of control (somehow). They are a big problem (but not always).
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
Notice how you switched tact from an absolutist view (either you live in fear or you don't) to a relativist track where mind-boggling happens on a scale.
Wonder why you aren't asking the exact same kind of questions re: living in fear.
Has the fear accelerated?
Is there good and bad fear?
Are you often fearful?
If you are afraid in 2019, I wonder if there is even a period in human history where you might have felt unafraid to speak the truth.
Sounds like your conception of freedom of speech also mandates freedom from consequences of speech.
Surely, if you are such proponent of freedom then you also believe in Freedom of Association?
You are free to say un-PC things, and your employers/customers are free to disassociate themselves form you.
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
You've got some loopy logic.
Getting shot for what you say isn't exactly of no consequence.
The freedom is from the threat of consequences being a deterrent to living in peace, because the threat of consequences is the only thing that free speech needs defense, against.
This is so obvious that it's rather painful of you to not see it.
Do you try hard to misrepresent or does it come naturally?
Getting shot for what you say isn't exactly of no consequence.
The freedom is from the threat of consequences being a deterrent to living in peace, because the threat of consequences is the only thing that free speech needs defense, against.
This is so obvious that it's rather painful of you to not see it.
Do you try hard to misrepresent or does it come naturally?
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
Jesus spoke freely and was unafraid of consequences. He knew he was destined for the cross but unlike us, he would profit from consequences through the resurrection.
Some men are rapists and others will defend women from rape. We can ignore them both but I prefer men who are willing to defend a woman from being raped.
The sixth commandment says not to kill, This is the literal meaning. The psychological and esoteric meaning refers to killing in the heart done by motives of negative emotion.
Confusing the literal with the psychological is what allows a person to justify avoiding concern for a woman being raped and if necessary even killing the rapist. Defense does not have to be a negative emotion.
Some men are rapists and others will defend women from rape. We can ignore them both but I prefer men who are willing to defend a woman from being raped.
The sixth commandment says not to kill, This is the literal meaning. The psychological and esoteric meaning refers to killing in the heart done by motives of negative emotion.
Confusing the literal with the psychological is what allows a person to justify avoiding concern for a woman being raped and if necessary even killing the rapist. Defense does not have to be a negative emotion.
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
What I notice is that you introduced the boggle, turned it into some kind of mess, then tried to dump it off. Boggle is your bag.Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 12, 2019 4:05 pm Notice how you switched tact from an absolutist view (either you live in fear or you don't) to a relativist track where mind-boggling happens on a scale.
Wonder why you aren't asking the exact same kind of questions re: living in fear.
Has the fear accelerated?
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
I wouldn't know. How do you know?
You introduced rape. I introduced killing the rapist in reference to living in peace being a result of taking responsibility for killing the rapist, and thus being at peace with the punishment, being at peace with the consequence of being shot as a punishment, and that not being a problem, a concept which for Slepdick is mind-boggling.
Whether or not the rapist should be killed is another issue, as is some supposed lack of concern that you dreamed up over a woman being raped.
You are the only one who suggests ignoring, not we.Nick_A wrote:Some men are rapists and others will defend women from rape. We can ignore them both but I prefer men who are willing to defend a woman from being raped.
You mention your preference. Is that a literal or psychological preference?
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
Walker
Are you familiar with the Bystander effect?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basi ... der-effect
If we understood what killing in the heart means in contrast to the literal concept of killing we could be able to be governed by objective conscience rather than consequences. The objective value of free speech would be clear. Society could never accept it, It couldn't tolerate the consequences of opening to the experience of objective conscience in which the difference between literal and psychological meanings become obvious.
This isn't so simple. How many are willing to accept the consequences and prefer living in peace? Of course those protesting in favor of Hitler in Germany were willing to accept the consequences as they fought for peace. Of course lack of concern is the only reason why killing as it concerns wars and abortions of convenience are considered normal. Was there any concern for Kitty Genovese when she was being attacked? No people preferred living in peace.You introduced rape. I introduced killing the rapist in reference to living in peace being a result of taking responsibility for killing the rapist, and thus being at peace with the punishment, being at peace with the consequence of being shot as a punishment, and that not being a problem, a concept which for Slepdick is mind-boggling.
Whether or not the rapist should be killed is another issue, as is some supposed lack of concern that you dreamed up over a woman being raped.
Nick_A wrote:
Some men are rapists and others will defend women from rape. We can ignore them both but I prefer men who are willing to defend a woman from being raped.
You are the only one who suggests ignoring, not we.
You mention your preference. Is that a literal or psychological preference?
Are you familiar with the Bystander effect?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basi ... der-effect
If we understood what killing in the heart means in contrast to the literal concept of killing we could be able to be governed by objective conscience rather than consequences. The objective value of free speech would be clear. Society could never accept it, It couldn't tolerate the consequences of opening to the experience of objective conscience in which the difference between literal and psychological meanings become obvious.
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
Killing in the heart and literal killing are two forms of the same thing. Another form of the same thing is killing with voice. To kill with words and thoughts is born of the same intent as killing with body. Each of the three expressions of intent carries its own results and consequences, each of the three is the same as the other, with characteristics of its particular form. However with body form, crossing that line is the most definitive, the most irrevocable.
For example, think bad* and bad is what you get**.
For example, the words, "You are dead to me," is one form of the same thing that can manifest in three forms.
* intent from the heart
** literally
For example, think bad* and bad is what you get**.
For example, the words, "You are dead to me," is one form of the same thing that can manifest in three forms.
* intent from the heart
** literally
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
All the commandments have both an inner and outer meaning. The outer is meant for the outer man or our personality. the inner or esoteric is meant for the inner man or what we are.Walker wrote: ↑Sun Oct 13, 2019 5:57 am Killing in the heart and literal killing are two forms of the same thing. Another form of the same thing is killing with voice. To kill with words and thoughts is born of the same intent as killing with body. Each of the three expressions of intent carries its own results and consequences, each of the three is the same as the other, with characteristics of its particular form. However with body form, crossing that line is the most definitive, the most irrevocable.
For example, think bad* and bad is what you get**.
For example, the words, "You are dead to me," is one form of the same thing that can manifest in three forms.
* intent from the heart
** literally
Killing the body or by the voice refers to our personality. Killing from the heart refers to what we are and how we damage ourselves, our being, through the welcome acceptance and justification of our negative emotions.
Thou shalt not kill has one meaning and though shalt not murder in the heart has another.
Re: Is Free Speech Worth Defending?
What is your take on the merging of inner and outer?