This doesn't flow. Why, specifically, would there be no society in the absence of absolute rights? Society is a construct, as are the laws it enforces and the rights it grants.
Societies are not constructs. They are natural occurrences of people living together or with each other. They evolve naturally, and we tend to call them Cultures.
You are equating the State with Society, they are not one in the same. They are two completely different occurrences. Society is an organic system that develops cultures and the sort. The State is the creation and methodology used to control the right's of another through the idea of collective action. What you are promoting here is blatant statism.
Wait, no. Premeditation is an important qualifier, although "planning ahead" is not itself a crime. But we punish a "crime of passion"—jealous lover kills cheating partner in a fit of rage, say—differently than a killing spree planned months in advance.
What is this "we" stuff? None of us here, as far as I am aware of, is in Law Enforcement or the Judicial system. What you mean to say is that the people that came before you and me decided to create those laws and whether they should be enforced.
Personally, I think Murder is Murder. There is no difference between some guy killing their Ex-GF over that, and say a guy deciding to go on a rampage killing multiple people in a theater. They are the same situation ethically, both crimes of passion or emotive basis.
For killing I think there is only one distinguishing difference, was it self-defense or not?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Legacy Decks
~~~~~~~~~
Too many to list efficiently. Find me online with the same SN if you want to play, or message me here to set up a time to play.
Modern
~~~~~~~~~
Whatever pile of 75 I throw together the night before without testing. Usually: :symb::symu::symg:
Is this kind of harm bad enough to warrant punishment, y/n also why, is basically it.
Although there's still a question, for me, as to whether mere speech can cause harm. Is there any evidence for that? Also, how can we distinguish between the speech itself and the act of harassment? Or should we even attempt to do so?
What is this "we" stuff? None of us here, as far as I am aware of, is in Law Enforcement or the Judicial system.
Hm, way to be pedantic. Take it as an exclusive "we": You might disagree, but I personally agree with the principles, and so do a lot of other people. Even those not in law enforcement or the justice system.
Personally, I think Murder is Murder. There is no difference between some guy killing their Ex-GF over that, and say a guy deciding to go on a rampage killing multiple people in a theater. They are the same situation ethically, both crimes of passion or emotive basis.
Except that there are known neurological differences between the brain state of someone overwhelmed with passion and someone coldly planning a massacre months in advance. So why should there be no difference?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Societies are not constructs. They are natural occurrences of people living together or with each other. They evolve naturally, and we tend to call them Cultures.
You are equating the State with Society, they are not one in the same. They are two completely different occurrences. Society is an organic system that develops cultures and the sort. The State is the creation and methodology used to control the right's of another through the idea of collective action. What you are promoting here is blatant statism.
The state is an expression of the socio-cultural and socio-economic forces that take place, the integration point for the level of complexity by which governments formulate is relative to geography, population density, and economic integration.
It is interesting to note the population density for Britain and some regions of Canada, such as where Teia comes from, tends to have higher amounts of socialism. This coordinates with the amount of forced altruism to take on a reinforced statism, where as a smaller community can have more anarchist or more arguable clan and tribal based structures that reinforce norms through social pressure than de jure factors.
Which brings us back to the issue of hate speech and information cascade. Humans often absorb their beliefs from other people and copy other humans for behaviors. Which reinforces a predilection towards having a minimum set standard of rules by which everyone behaves under and reinforced against deviant. In the older city-states this meant exile, today it means jail. Which brings up deficiencies in dealing with deviant behavior by bifurcating that which must be dealt with to encourage enough altruism and reciprocity to occur without breaking down social cohesion.
What has helped to break down social cohesion is a combination of mobility and econo-technical forces that have bifurcated generations over geography, economic stratum, and even worlds, i.e. virtual versus real life. This has entertained new social norms that have yet to fully comprehend under the old institutions such as family and government and ect. Hate speech is one cheap by raising the transaction costs to emerge with more hate to incite people to copy those slogans and act upon them through information cascade.
However, the permutations for the KKK and other hate groups has been to commercialize rather than to radicalize in the same vein as Islamofascists. This commercialization and such has yet to provide deleterious effects upon the social order, the only expressions therein are tribe-gangs that show a small amount of deviants that have proven incapable to find themselves into a social framework upon which they can thrive. These permutations share some general traits, such as a breakdown in the family or as simple as being a follower mentality and "falling in with the wrong crowd" through the allure of belonging.
The problem is that by not competing against those with inclusive groups say philosophies or religions like anarcho capitalism, Confuscianism, Christianity, family, Americans, and ect. I mean even take MtG it has it's own "subculture" and rules enforcers and there are debates on how to gauge a balance of powers to purge corruption among the moderators and to make things more transparent. Fascinating really.
Now we get edited for speech here, because of the high number of children, teenagers, and people who are of differences. So, for example, the censorship system blocks various words ranging from the "not so nice word for gays," "n-word," and ect. That predilection is a formative expression of socio-cultural forces codified into an institutional system by which to extricate a lower transaction cost in order to trade in ideas.
That seems to be a fine piece for legislating a message board that has younger persons, but woe-begotten to manage a continental wide empire where looser rules are necessary to keep transaction costs low. Rules enforcement, relative to technology and population and economic transaction level, are all parts. Where there is a lot of socio-technological forces involved, the increase in rules and enforcement mechanisms increases. Where as along the frontiers there's more reliance on the self which reinforces a more rugged individualist experience since the pay off for having a lot of rules is low.
Now, considering speech, as touched upon before there's some benefit to channeling the hate into more "productive" areas such as song and limited rallies. It provides a place for rebellion to be expressed without the necessary violence. What is lacking in part are institutions such as families and the like to keep people from falling into these traps. Education and the government has been tempted to become some sort of catch all for social ills, whenever traditionally we had family and the church to deal with such social deleterious effects. By which it has become more evident even upon atheists that new forms of union and social bonds are necessary to perpetuate human existence to spread information and livelihood.
That said, hate speech is a malediction of the state trying to overtake the reign of other institutions that have atrophied under the weight of markets and consumerism that has displaced more traditional forms of republicanism such as self-mastery and local governance. Replacing it with a "buy this to solve your problems" reinforcing government as a place to solve all social ills as nothing more of an expression of taking the de facto impulse to buy a product to solve a problem and mutating it into a magnificent malefactor; a de jure construct. Considering today people like simple answers because of socio-technical conditioning along with marketing, the "fix it all simple pls k thx" is the economization and subversion of the family by the market and inevitably the government. As such societies are refracted through the lens of government and it's various institutions.
Just because there's no obligation for a government to form doesn't mean that a government can't form. I'm under no obligation to read your posts, for instance, yet for some reason I do so anyway.
No, but your generation is more comfortable on the internets, no? Compounded via that Canada is a colder climate among other factors one can reasonable presume that you will more than likely read his posts, though. Which relates back to information cascade and personal preferences reigned upon by copying other humans and the individual having a natural predilection towards certain behaviors based upon their own unique person. Which reinforces why certain rules manifest themselves time and again over a wide expanse of geography, time, economic, and technological factors that manifest through various cultural institutions. You have thus been unable to show how through top down enforce to stop certain behaviors from occurring.
The only reason why the n-word is banned is because various activists made a big stink about it, and that didn't take a law. Which reinforces expression and manifestation with punishment, on side is socialism and the other is anarchism. Which, however, is more of a question for the specialization of labor by which to deal with complex psycho-social manifestation that are malefactors to a cohesive, healthy framework from cascading into fire and brimstone. Thus far you have neglected to mention the tools by which to use non governmental forces to achieve wider reaching goals, which I might add is ironically at times one of the stronger ways by which to convince people on a marketing level which takes sincerity to convince and punishment at the same time to support creating soci-cultural norms and laws, where appropriate, to protect citizens that are fall outside of the typical. Whether frontierists or urbanites.
And it's impossible to find common or at least comparable shared subjective standards?
In reality, because there is an objective standard underlying all moralities, no. But if there weren't, then yes, it may well be impossible, especially when you try to generalize. Two people may certainly find common ground on one particular issue. But add more people and/or more issues, and mutual incompatibility becomes all but inevitable. Simple scenario:
Anne and Bill agree on issues 1 and 2, but disagree on issue 3.
Anne and Cate agree on issues 1 and 3, but disagree on issue 2.
Bill and Cate agree on issues 2 and 3, but disagree on issue 1.
This is irresolvable.
I should clarify that the potential for irresolvable scenarios is not in itself an argument against subjectivism. It may be that subjectivism is true and sometimes scenarios really are irresolvable. That's fine. I'm not trying to disprove subjectivism in these paragraphs. I'm just trying to show you that subjectivism doesn't allow you to do what you want to do.
So, to bring this back around to the topic, there is no a priori reason under subjectivism for you to expect that you can find common principles justifying hate speech legislation between the U.S. and Canada - much less between the U.S., Canada, and, say, Iran.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The state is an expression of the socio-cultural and socio-economic forces that take place, the integration point for the level of complexity by which governments formulate is relative to geography, population density, and economic integration.
Statism is the application of force and regimentation to ensure the continuance of itself. The State itself is a formation of a select group that use popular support to enforce their position of power through collectivization. Neither is natural for a civilized society. Both are detrimental to said civilized society as they promote violence and criminality.
It is interesting to note the population density for Britain and some regions of Canada, such as where Teia comes from, tends to have higher amounts of socialism. This coordinates with the amount of forced altruism to take on a reinforced statism, where as a smaller community can have more anarchist or more arguable clan and tribal based structures that reinforce norms through social pressure than de jure factors.
Altruism is a fallacy. It's merely the thought that one can cure themselves of guilt by giving of one's self to another. The whole idea is based upon guilt and Divine Morality.
Which brings us back to the issue of hate speech and information cascade. Humans often absorb their beliefs from other people and copy other humans for behaviors. Which reinforces a predilection towards having a minimum set standard of rules by which everyone behaves under and reinforced against deviant. In the older city-states this meant exile, today it means jail. Which brings up deficiencies in dealing with deviant behavior by bifurcating that which must be dealt with to encourage enough altruism and reciprocity to occur without breaking down social cohesion.
The City-States didn't exile, the simply killed the offenders. Exile in the way you are referring to wasn't a thing until the moralist reformation of the Catholic Church, which lead to the Inquisitions as well. So in reality they didn't start exiling, they merely murdered those they didn't like.
Prison is Statism's method of dealing with those that do not belong according the the Majority rules, or the Power rule. It can be either depending on what stage of the decay the particular State is going through. All states are in constant decay. Divine Morality dictates that no State can ever be in Reverence, as it violates the concept of the Original Sin. Modern Statism is based on Divine Morality.
What has helped to break down social cohesion is a combination of mobility and econo-technical forces that have bifurcated generations over geography, economic stratum, and even worlds, i.e. virtual versus real life. This has entertained new social norms that have yet to fully comprehend under the old institutions such as family and government and ect. Hate speech is one cheap by raising the transaction costs to emerge with more hate to incite people to copy those slogans and act upon them through information cascade.
There hasn't been a homogeneous society on this planet for quite some time. Even the Pigmy's and other assorted natives around the world's jungles have adopted traditions and customs from some other societies. Hate Speech is a talking point, nothing more.
However, the permutations for the KKK and other hate groups has been to commercialize rather than to radicalize in the same vein as Islamofascists. This commercialization and such has yet to provide deleterious effects upon the social order, the only expressions therein are tribe-gangs that show a small amount of deviants that have proven incapable to find themselves into a social framework upon which they can thrive. These permutations share some general traits, such as a breakdown in the family or as simple as being a follower mentality and "falling in with the wrong crowd" through the allure of belonging.
Have you ever actually read the history of these groups? They are not just groups with a few members, they are entire cultures unto themselves. By any real definition they are independent societies. I think your being too simplistic here, and do not actually understand what it is that you are talking about. Your heavy use of Dialectics is giving it away.
The problem is that by not competing against those with inclusive groups say philosophies or religions like anarcho capitalism, Confuscianism, Christianity, family, Americans, and ect. I mean even take MtG it has it's own "subculture" and rules enforcers and there are debates on how to gauge a balance of powers to purge corruption among the moderators and to make things more transparent. Fascinating really.
No, actually you are making it sound more complex than it really is. So it's not really fascinating. Anyone that actually just lives their lives experiences this everyday. The term sub-culture is inherently flawed and based on the perspective of the State defining culture, which it doesn't. Culture is defined from the Individual perspective, and formulated through these interactions daily. It's merely a matter of perception. The society that evolves it does exist, even if only a more firm version of illusionary bonds.
Now we get edited for speech here, because of the high number of children, teenagers, and people who are of differences. So, for example, the censorship system blocks various words ranging from the "not so nice word for gays," "n-word," and ect. That predilection is a formative expression of socio-cultural forces codified into an institutional system by which to extricate a lower transaction cost in order to trade in ideas.
Most of that is predicated by Statism and it's intolerance. The rest of that commentary was utter nonsense.
That seems to be a fine piece for legislating a message board that has younger persons, but woe-begotten to manage a continental wide empire where looser rules are necessary to keep transaction costs low. Rules enforcement, relative to technology and population and economic transaction level, are all parts. Where there is a lot of socio-technological forces involved, the increase in rules and enforcement mechanisms increases. Where as along the frontiers there's more reliance on the self which reinforces a more rugged individualist experience since the pay off for having a lot of rules is low.
The State raises the transaction costs itself by it's mere existence.
Now, considering speech, as touched upon before there's some benefit to channeling the hate into more "productive" areas such as song and limited rallies. It provides a place for rebellion to be expressed without the necessary violence. What is lacking in part are institutions such as families and the like to keep people from falling into these traps. Education and the government has been tempted to become some sort of catch all for social ills, whenever traditionally we had family and the church to deal with such social deleterious effects. By which it has become more evident even upon atheists that new forms of union and social bonds are necessary to perpetuate human existence to spread information and livelihood.
That doesn't justify the State or it's interventions. All that does is excuse it for furthering the deterioration of those traditional elements of Societies.
That said, hate speech is a malediction of the state trying to overtake the reign of other institutions that have atrophied under the weight of markets and consumerism that has displaced more traditional forms of republicanism such as self-mastery and local governance. Replacing it with a "buy this to solve your problems" reinforcing government as a place to solve all social ills as nothing more of an expression of taking the de facto impulse to buy a product to solve a problem and mutating it into a magnificent malefactor; a de jure construct. Considering today people like simple answers because of socio-technical conditioning along with marketing, the "fix it all simple pls k thx" is the economization and subversion of the family by the market and inevitably the government. As such societies are refracted through the lens of government and it's various institutions.
I knew you would get to your point eventually. I know you're really pushing this Dialectics schtick in an effort to do whatever it is that you think it's doing for you, but geez. I could have summed that entire mass of text up in less than four paragraphs.
I can agree with Comsumerism being partially to blame for the advances of Statism, but not the markets. In reality what we have in the world today are not actually markets by definition. A store such as Wal-Mart does not fit the definition of a Market, as there is only the buyer, there are no sellers. Likewise, the Stock Market is not a Market either, as you are only exchanging money for notaries. There are no actual goods or services being sold on the Stock Market. So in reality the Flea Markets, or Farmer's Markets are the only true Markets left in the US. Everything else is highly corporatized warehouses that store goods. It's essentially the Communist dream come true already.
I do enjoy enjoy reading your posts though, even if I find most of your conclusions puzzling with the level of eloquence you use to express them.
Spam infraction. Stay on topic, people.
This is on topic, follow the thread, or quit harassing me. The debate is about defining Morality. This entire post deals with defining Morality.
Hm, way to be pedantic. Take it as an exclusive "we": You might disagree, but I personally agree with the principles, and so do a lot of other people. Even those not in law enforcement or the justice system.
Personal agreement doesn't change the fact that no one here had any say in how the laws are written or enforced.
If by justice you mean state sponsored revenge...
Except that there are known neurological differences between the brain state of someone overwhelmed with passion and someone coldly planning a massacre months in advance. So why should there be no difference?
Both are still crimes of emotion. If there is no reasonable standard for the judgement of how something is determined to be a criminal how can you have a rational and reasonable application of the punishment for said crimes? How can you determine that one crime of that nature is infinitely worse than another? How do you quantify that?
By shear numerical quantity? If that is the case then why do we not have those that drop bombs on brown people and those that order them to do so in prison, because they kill a lot more than some wacko that planned a mass-killing. What about Auto-Manufacturers when they sell vehicles that kill several people?
By emotional content? Then some child that is left over from his mother being killed by her EX should be the priority?
There is no real answer to this. It's best to simply leave one condition for all, and let everyone accept it, or is it? You tell me, because I would not be so bold as to assume that I would know how another person would want their Justice/Revenge. Justice and Revenge are essentially the same thing.
This might be because it's inconsistent. I'm not sure what you mean by "agree on", but I finnd it hard to come up with an interpretation that's not a transitive relation. This is problematic, because if you pick any one of these statements, then the other two will contradict it (You say Bill and Cate disagree with issue 1 but they both agree with Anne).
Still, there are obviously tons of simple scenarios where an agreement cannot be reached.
Damn, you're right. Silly me. Should have been:
Anne and Bill agree on issue 1, but disagree on issues 2 and 3.
Anne and Cate agree on issue 2, but disagree on issues 1 and 3.
Bill and Cate agree on issue 3, but disagree on issues 1 and 2.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's impossible to say that non-shared subjective standards are better or worse than each other, yes.
Which seems to me to be an argument in favour of why wildly disparate cultures seemingly can't come to agreement on issues that both think they're objectively right about.
No. But it sure is hypocritical. And it suggests that, until gays are on our list, you'd suggest that they don't deserve protection.
Great strides have been made in getting sexual orientation (and to a lesser extent gender identity and expression) onto various states' lists. In places where that's the case, they're entitled to the same protection as any other group. In places where it's not, then they aren't, but that's not to say that they shouldn't be.
I agree. But any government that does form has no real measure of legitimacy. And any rights guaranteed by the government exist by fiat, rather than by any other basis. And, as such, there's no reason for the government to say, "It's okay to kill gay people. We don't want them here anyway." Would that be a statement you'd find moral?
I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish by talking about "legitimacy." However, some governments do think it's okay to kill gay people (Uganda, for instance, with that Kill The Gays bill it keeps trying to pass), and while I can condemn that attitude based upon my own standards, I can't say that it's objectively wrong of them.
Although there's still a question, for me, as to whether mere speech can cause harm. Is there any evidence for that? Also, how can we distinguish between the speech itself and the act of harassment? Or should we even attempt to do so?
Well, minority stress is a real thing, and it's largely caused by intangible factors, and hate speech functions quite effectively as an external stressor. As for harassment, it's noteworthy that individual comments can and often are punished by private entities (such as company HR departments punishing sexist comments as being sexual harassment), where someone asking the same questions you are would likely see no problem unless some physical action was taken.
I don't think the Southerners who fought a war to preserve slavery would agree on these metrics.
They might have agreed on the metrics, but disagreed on the details.
In reality, because there is an objective standard underlying all moralities, no.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on there, sparky. I want actual, solid proof that there is such an objective standard. Real, quantitative evidence, not qualitative evidence, not some kind of philosophical argument. If you're going to make such a claim, then mere assertion is insufficient.
I'm just trying to show you that subjectivism doesn't allow you to do what you want to do.
It apparently would, since we seem to have over 500 posts of apparently irresolvable difference, at least under what shared standards we're currently debating under.
So, to bring this back around to the topic, there is no a priori reason under subjectivism for you to expect that you can find common principles justifying hate speech legislation between the U.S. and Canada - much less between the U.S., Canada, and, say, Iran.
That, however, doesn't preclude analysis of those countries to determine what common principles may exist.
Are you really asking for quantitated morality? How do you envision that even being possible? Or to reword it, what precisely would you accept as quantitative evidence.
If he's going to make such a big deal that such a thing objectively exists, then I want solid proof, not theory. What exactly such proof entails would be up to the one who's attempting to prove it.
Which seems to me to be an argument in favour of why wildly disparate cultures seemingly can't come to agreement on issues that both think they're objectively right about.
Great strides have been made in getting sexual orientation (and to a lesser extent gender identity and expression) onto various states' lists. In places where that's the case, they're entitled to the same protection as any other group. In places where it's not, then they aren't, but that's not to say that they shouldn't be.
I frankly find it rather hypocritical that a transgender listed as the new gender can enter into a heterosexual marriage either before or after and maintain that marriage. So essentially gay marriage is legal depending on the timing rules.
I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish by talking about "legitimacy." However, some governments do think it's okay to kill gay people (Uganda, for instance, with that Kill The Gays bill it keeps trying to pass), and while I can condemn that attitude based upon my own standards, I can't say that it's objectively wrong of them.[/QUOTE]
A part of the blame for that has been evangelism into Africa has helped to spread hate towards gays. The core of that message would be interrupted as the state stepping into the realm of religion to spurn that speech in areas such as the States from whence those missionaries come.
It uses tax money to go after people saying and selling product, that in the US after breaking the back of the main outlets and through major social up shot that culminated into almost a Second American Civil War.
Well, minority stress is a real thing, and it's largely caused by intangible factors, and hate speech functions quite effectively as an external stressor. As for harassment, it's noteworthy that individual comments can and often are punished by private entities (such as company HR departments punishing sexist comments as being sexual harassment), where someone asking the same questions you are would likely see no problem unless some physical action was taken.
You have yet to establish that the transaction costs for going after individuals in such a manner does not drive the talk underground altogether to create a black market with spill over effects such as forbidden fruit syndrome that has helped to popularize drugs.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Since you're demanding it, you might want to clarify what you'll accept. That way, there won't be any accusations of moving the goalposts later. Or, things like, "I don't count that. That's not what I meant."
Well, given that part of this involves convincing me that such a thing is in fact possible, I'd say it's fair that I can't really give you an idea of what I'm looking for.
How do you reconcile that?
By pointing out that your argument doesn't really work as it seems to operate under some kind of assumption that I can only argue for preservation of the status quo.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on there, sparky. I want actual, solid proof that there is such an objective standard. Real, quantitative evidence, not qualitative evidence, not some kind of philosophical argument. If you're going to make such a claim, then mere assertion is insufficient.
Reading comprehension lesson. You would have every right to object, if that first sentence were my thesis statement for that post. But it isn't:
I'm not trying to disprove subjectivism in these paragraphs. I'm just trying to show you that subjectivism doesn't allow you to do what you want to do.
What is that sentence, then? It's a brief reminder that I disagree with your premise, as a preliminary to granting that premise for the sake of argument and showing where it leads. You can tell this is the case because I hypothetically negate the claim ("But if there weren't...") to open the very next sentence - which is the actual thesis statement of the post, being what the argument supports.
Now, if you want an argument that objective morality exists, you know very well that people have been writing big fat books on the question for thousands of years. And I think you know that it's my special area of interest; I won't say I could write a big fat book of my own (gimme a break, I'm only a B.A.), but I could write quite a lot. So there's a reason I didn't press the claim for this thread. Start a new thread in Philosophy if you really want to hear about it. For here, I'll just point out that some human behaviors regularly and demonstrably result in a greater flourishing of human culture and well-being than other human behaviors: life in South Korea is better than life in North Korea, and the behavior of the Koreans (in this case, the ruling-class Koreans) is the cause of that.
Now, I'd ask for your reaction to my argument, the one about subjectivism and irresolvability. But you seem to have tacitly accepted it.
That, however, doesn't preclude analysis of those countries to determine what common principles may exist.
Well, there was my humble suggestion that "free speech" was a common principle - since, y'know, it's written as a common principle in our highest laws. But that didn't go over too well for some reason.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
For here, I'll just point out that some human behaviors regularly and demonstrably result in a greater flourishing of human culture and well-being than other human behaviors: life in South Korea is better than life in North Korea, and the behavior of the Koreans (in this case, the ruling-class Koreans) is the cause of that.
Personally, I read a statement like this and can only think "'better' is based on arbitrary metrics" (metrics I may well agree with, but my point stands), and that when you get into less stark comparisons, such as Canada versus the US, or France vs Sweden, or whatever, these "objective" conclusions become increasingly harder to draw. Either way, no matter what kinds of patterns emerge, this doesn't mean much of anything for a supposed system that exists independently of human culture and society.
Well, there was my humble suggestion that "free speech" was a common principle - since, y'know, it's written as a common principle in our highest laws. But that didn't go over too well for some reason.
Because in all cases it's more "free speech within specific limitations." The US draws specific lines, Canada draws others, and other countries draw yet different lines.
One of the things that makes Canada vs the US a bit less comparable, though, is what freedom means to each country. Canada, in general, tends to see freedom in terms of freedom to do things. In this case, we're free to express ourselves within certain limitations. The US, in general, tends to see freedom in terms of having freedom from things. In this case, the freedom from having one's expression unduly restricted. What appears on the outside to be similar principles actually wind up being a lot more different than expected.
Personally, I read a statement like this and can only think "'better' is based on arbitrary metrics" (metrics I may well agree with, but my point stands), and that when you get into less stark comparisons, such as Canada versus the US, or France vs Sweden, or whatever, these "objective" conclusions become increasingly harder to draw. Either way, no matter what kinds of patterns emerge, this doesn't mean much of anything for a supposed system that exists independently of human culture and society.
Those are all worthy topics of discussion that I will be happy to address elsewhere.
One of the things that makes Canada vs the US a bit less comparable, though, is what freedom means to each country. Canada, in general, tends to see freedom in terms of freedom to do things. In this case, we're free to express ourselves within certain limitations. The US, in general, tends to see freedom in terms of having freedom from things. In this case, the freedom from having one's expression unduly restricted. What appears on the outside to be similar principles actually wind up being a lot more different than expected.
I think you're seeing a distinction where none exists. Free speech is by definition a freedom to do a thing, no matter what country you're in. And other rights (e.g., due process) are by definition freedoms from things, again no matter what country you're in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
One of the things that makes Canada vs the US a bit less comparable, though, is what freedom means to each country. Canada, in general, tends to see freedom in terms of freedom to do things. In this case, we're free to express ourselves within certain limitations.
But from that point of view, is that "free" speech? Or merely "allowed" speech?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
But from that point of view, is that "free" speech? Or merely "allowed" speech?
That's exactly what I'm getting at. Freedom from one thing and the freedom to do another thing are two different views of freedom in principle. It does link a bit into the difference between the "we're giving you this freedom" view (e.g. the Canadian view, where the Charter of Rights and Freedoms simply says "everyone has" freedom of expression) and the "we're protecting a freedom we believe everyone already has" view (e.g. the American view, such as how the Declaration of Independence states everyone is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"). Both types of speech are free within their established boundaries, but the nature of each freedom is very different. Which in turn is reflected a bit in how each country views government, where the American federal government's duties work on a "they're only what we say they are" system, and the Canadian federal government's work on a "they're everything except what we say they aren't" system. So sweeping hate speech legislation would be anathema to how America sees government even though it's well within how Canada sees government.
Basically what I'm getting at is that these kinds of differences take something that seems very similar between two neighbouring countries and render it very different in reality.
Both types of speech are free within their established boundaries, but the nature of each freedom is very different. Which in turn is reflected a bit in how each country views government, where the American federal government's duties work on a "they're only what we say they are" system, and the Canadian federal government's work on a "they're everything except what we say they aren't" system. So sweeping hate speech legislation would be anathema to how America sees government even though it's well within how Canada sees government.
So... does the debate stop there? Or can we evaluate both positions by some other measure? Because the Canadian mentality towards government, as you've identified it, seems really dangerous with respect to some things. Maybe you just complain more often, so nobody gets particularly creative with their governance?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
So... does the debate stop there? Or can we evaluate both positions by some other measure? Because the Canadian mentality towards government, as you've identified it, seems really dangerous with respect to some things. Maybe you just complain more often, so nobody gets particularly creative with their governance?
Well, I did only focus on the ways in which they're different rather than the ways in which they're similar. It's not to say that the latter category doesn't exist. And I don't think the Canadian mentality is overly dangerous, since in practice it simply inverts the American system—America grants power to the states unless stated otherwise, and Canada grants power to the federal government unless stated otherwise. America's about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Canada's about "peace, order, and good government" (or if you're in Quebec, "paix, ordre, et bon gouvernement"), so each works according to its principles. If the Canadian system is "dangerous," then so is the American system, albeit on more, smaller scales but with added fragmentation on the whole, as each state can do on their own level what the Canadian federal government can do on a national level, although constitutional differences do preclude any given state from enacting hate speech legislation like Canada has. And as a point I've made before in this thread, when someone's raised on a specific ideology, they're much more likely to internalize that ideology (in the case of this thread, Americans seeing freedom of speech as meaning freedom from having restrictions on speech outside what currently exists) as being inherently good, and anything that challenges or is contrary to that ideology (in the case of this thread, Canada feeling hate speech legislation is an entirely acceptable restriction on the freedom of speech its government grants its citizens) as being inherently bad. It's something to be aware about when trying to discuss these issues in comparison to different societies with different values, as there's a definite pattern in this thread of Americans arguing against hate speech legislation and non-Americans arguing for it, and I can think of few to no examples of this pattern being broken.
And I don't think the Canadian mentality is overly dangerous, since in practice it simply inverts the American system—America grants power to the states unless stated otherwise, and Canada grants power to the federal government unless stated otherwise.
I didn't say it was overly dangerous, just possibly in certain areas, and in my opinion.
If the Canadian system is "dangerous," then so is the American system, albeit on more, smaller scales but with added fragmentation on the whole, as each state can do on their own level what the Canadian federal government can do on a national level, although constitutional differences do preclude any given state from enacting hate speech legislation like Canada has.
It's definitely not perfect, especially as exemplified by the current Tea Party bizarro world of certain "red states." But I guess I (perhaps romantically) like the idea of a "constructed government," from the bottom up, rather than lumped together and then carved away. On a whole both philosophies have served people pretty well (the European countries aren't less liberal than America, for all their top-down mentality), but both generate problems. I guess we'll have to see which one is more conducive to reform, and in what ways.
And as a point I've made before in this thread, when someone's raised on a specific ideology, they're much more likely to internalize that ideology (in the case of this thread, Americans seeing freedom of speech as meaning freedom from having restrictions on speech outside what currently exists) as being inherently good, and anything that challenges or is contrary to that ideology (in the case of this thread, Canada feeling hate speech legislation is an entirely acceptable restriction on the freedom of speech its government grants its citizens) as being inherently bad.
I don't think it's inherently bad, just (thus far) unjustified. It might not mean anything, but you did use the word "feeling" as opposed to "demonstrating" or "deciding (with justification)"...
It's something to be aware about when trying to discuss these issues in comparison to different societies with different values, as there's a definite pattern in this thread of Americans arguing against hate speech legislation and non-Americans arguing for it, and I can think of few to no examples of this pattern being broken.
It could be a geographic peculiarity. Or not. *shrug*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Well, I did only focus on the ways in which they're different rather than the ways in which they're similar. It's not to say that the latter category doesn't exist. And I don't think the Canadian mentality is overly dangerous, since in practice it simply inverts the American system—America grants power to the states unless stated otherwise, and Canada grants power to the federal government unless stated otherwise. America's about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Canada's about "peace, order, and good government" (or if you're in Quebec, "paix, ordre, et bon gouvernement"), so each works according to its principles.
For the record, I'm going to speak on this. In each tyrannical situation, power is granted specifically to the federal government on the basis of "It's for the good of the people." In a government like this, you do not have rights unless the government says so.
Tell me, do you want to live in a country where the whims of the political party that has a majority gets to decide what you go and do not get to do? I'll let you know now, in every situation where such a government has sprouted, there has been suppression of the people.
Look to Nazi Germany. Look to the USSR. Look to China. Look to South Africa during the apartheid years. Look to Iran, Syria, and many Middle Eastern nations now.
The people are the basis of the democratic government. Whether a representative republic or a true democracy, retaining more power at the federal level and stripping that power from the people is the antithesis to the true Democratic process.
I am not saying that Canada is going to go the way of Nazi Germany. I do, however, think it is very dangerous to concentrate all the power in a minority group of politicians, "for the good of the community".
Congress has been doing this for years. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against them when they get out of hand. Thank God, too.
If the Canadian system is "dangerous," then so is the American system, albeit on more, smaller scales but with added fragmentation on the whole, as each state can do on their own level what the Canadian federal government can do on a national level, although constitutional differences do preclude any given state from enacting hate speech legislation like Canada has.
You've already stated that there is a severe gap between Canada and the United States' variations in government. You can not say that we are the same in the same breath as saying it isn't. It doesn't work.
And as a point I've made before in this thread, when someone's raised on a specific ideology, they're much more likely to internalize that ideology (in the case of this thread, Americans seeing freedom of speech as meaning freedom from having restrictions on speech outside what currently exists) as being inherently good, and anything that challenges or is contrary to that ideology (in the case of this thread, Canada feeling hate speech legislation is an entirely acceptable restriction on the freedom of speech its government grants its citizens) as being inherently bad. It's something to be aware about when trying to discuss these issues in comparison to different societies with different values, as there's a definite pattern in this thread of Americans arguing against hate speech legislation and non-Americans arguing for it, and I can think of few to no examples of this pattern being broken.
I...really don't think you understand the history of the United States. I seriously don't. I would recommend at least looking up the history behind why the Constitution was drafted the way it was before you start in on this again.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
...there's a definite pattern in this thread of Americans arguing against hate speech legislation and non-Americans arguing for it, and I can think of few to no examples of this pattern being broken.
In no particular order: mikeg542, bakgat, that underscore guy, Harry Block, Christopher Hitchens, and John Stuart Mill.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In no particular order: mikeg542, bakgat, that underscore guy, Harry Block, Christopher Hitchens, and John Stuart Mill.
Name's Brian, used to be in my signature prior to having to make space for the Solaran quote.
and I haven't really argued for or against the actual hate speech legislation per se, just pointed out flaws in argumentation I found present and the rampant ethnocentrism.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Asking people to remove quotes in their signatures is tyranny! If I can't say something just because someone's feelings are hurt then no one would ever be able to say anything! Political correctness is stupid.
I don't know which side I'm supposed to be on in what you said. I am canadian and and am for hate speech legislation. I don't, however, support many of the parts that are held outside of criminal law and am glad that there is a trend towards removing that (the human rights commision).
Societies are not constructs. They are natural occurrences of people living together or with each other. They evolve naturally, and we tend to call them Cultures.
You are equating the State with Society, they are not one in the same. They are two completely different occurrences. Society is an organic system that develops cultures and the sort. The State is the creation and methodology used to control the right's of another through the idea of collective action. What you are promoting here is blatant statism.
What is this "we" stuff? None of us here, as far as I am aware of, is in Law Enforcement or the Judicial system. What you mean to say is that the people that came before you and me decided to create those laws and whether they should be enforced.
Personally, I think Murder is Murder. There is no difference between some guy killing their Ex-GF over that, and say a guy deciding to go on a rampage killing multiple people in a theater. They are the same situation ethically, both crimes of passion or emotive basis.
For killing I think there is only one distinguishing difference, was it self-defense or not?
~~~~~~~~~
Too many to list efficiently. Find me online with the same SN if you want to play, or message me here to set up a time to play.
Modern
~~~~~~~~~
Whatever pile of 75 I throw together the night before without testing. Usually: :symb::symu::symg:
Yeah, if it's subjectivity all the way down.
Although there's still a question, for me, as to whether mere speech can cause harm. Is there any evidence for that? Also, how can we distinguish between the speech itself and the act of harassment? Or should we even attempt to do so?
Hm, way to be pedantic. Take it as an exclusive "we": You might disagree, but I personally agree with the principles, and so do a lot of other people. Even those not in law enforcement or the justice system.
Except that there are known neurological differences between the brain state of someone overwhelmed with passion and someone coldly planning a massacre months in advance. So why should there be no difference?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
The state is an expression of the socio-cultural and socio-economic forces that take place, the integration point for the level of complexity by which governments formulate is relative to geography, population density, and economic integration.
It is interesting to note the population density for Britain and some regions of Canada, such as where Teia comes from, tends to have higher amounts of socialism. This coordinates with the amount of forced altruism to take on a reinforced statism, where as a smaller community can have more anarchist or more arguable clan and tribal based structures that reinforce norms through social pressure than de jure factors.
Which brings us back to the issue of hate speech and information cascade. Humans often absorb their beliefs from other people and copy other humans for behaviors. Which reinforces a predilection towards having a minimum set standard of rules by which everyone behaves under and reinforced against deviant. In the older city-states this meant exile, today it means jail. Which brings up deficiencies in dealing with deviant behavior by bifurcating that which must be dealt with to encourage enough altruism and reciprocity to occur without breaking down social cohesion.
What has helped to break down social cohesion is a combination of mobility and econo-technical forces that have bifurcated generations over geography, economic stratum, and even worlds, i.e. virtual versus real life. This has entertained new social norms that have yet to fully comprehend under the old institutions such as family and government and ect. Hate speech is one cheap by raising the transaction costs to emerge with more hate to incite people to copy those slogans and act upon them through information cascade.
However, the permutations for the KKK and other hate groups has been to commercialize rather than to radicalize in the same vein as Islamofascists. This commercialization and such has yet to provide deleterious effects upon the social order, the only expressions therein are tribe-gangs that show a small amount of deviants that have proven incapable to find themselves into a social framework upon which they can thrive. These permutations share some general traits, such as a breakdown in the family or as simple as being a follower mentality and "falling in with the wrong crowd" through the allure of belonging.
The problem is that by not competing against those with inclusive groups say philosophies or religions like anarcho capitalism, Confuscianism, Christianity, family, Americans, and ect. I mean even take MtG it has it's own "subculture" and rules enforcers and there are debates on how to gauge a balance of powers to purge corruption among the moderators and to make things more transparent. Fascinating really.
Now we get edited for speech here, because of the high number of children, teenagers, and people who are of differences. So, for example, the censorship system blocks various words ranging from the "not so nice word for gays," "n-word," and ect. That predilection is a formative expression of socio-cultural forces codified into an institutional system by which to extricate a lower transaction cost in order to trade in ideas.
That seems to be a fine piece for legislating a message board that has younger persons, but woe-begotten to manage a continental wide empire where looser rules are necessary to keep transaction costs low. Rules enforcement, relative to technology and population and economic transaction level, are all parts. Where there is a lot of socio-technological forces involved, the increase in rules and enforcement mechanisms increases. Where as along the frontiers there's more reliance on the self which reinforces a more rugged individualist experience since the pay off for having a lot of rules is low.
Now, considering speech, as touched upon before there's some benefit to channeling the hate into more "productive" areas such as song and limited rallies. It provides a place for rebellion to be expressed without the necessary violence. What is lacking in part are institutions such as families and the like to keep people from falling into these traps. Education and the government has been tempted to become some sort of catch all for social ills, whenever traditionally we had family and the church to deal with such social deleterious effects. By which it has become more evident even upon atheists that new forms of union and social bonds are necessary to perpetuate human existence to spread information and livelihood.
That said, hate speech is a malediction of the state trying to overtake the reign of other institutions that have atrophied under the weight of markets and consumerism that has displaced more traditional forms of republicanism such as self-mastery and local governance. Replacing it with a "buy this to solve your problems" reinforcing government as a place to solve all social ills as nothing more of an expression of taking the de facto impulse to buy a product to solve a problem and mutating it into a magnificent malefactor; a de jure construct. Considering today people like simple answers because of socio-technical conditioning along with marketing, the "fix it all simple pls k thx" is the economization and subversion of the family by the market and inevitably the government. As such societies are refracted through the lens of government and it's various institutions.
No, but your generation is more comfortable on the internets, no? Compounded via that Canada is a colder climate among other factors one can reasonable presume that you will more than likely read his posts, though. Which relates back to information cascade and personal preferences reigned upon by copying other humans and the individual having a natural predilection towards certain behaviors based upon their own unique person. Which reinforces why certain rules manifest themselves time and again over a wide expanse of geography, time, economic, and technological factors that manifest through various cultural institutions. You have thus been unable to show how through top down enforce to stop certain behaviors from occurring.
The only reason why the n-word is banned is because various activists made a big stink about it, and that didn't take a law. Which reinforces expression and manifestation with punishment, on side is socialism and the other is anarchism. Which, however, is more of a question for the specialization of labor by which to deal with complex psycho-social manifestation that are malefactors to a cohesive, healthy framework from cascading into fire and brimstone. Thus far you have neglected to mention the tools by which to use non governmental forces to achieve wider reaching goals, which I might add is ironically at times one of the stronger ways by which to convince people on a marketing level which takes sincerity to convince and punishment at the same time to support creating soci-cultural norms and laws, where appropriate, to protect citizens that are fall outside of the typical. Whether frontierists or urbanites.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
In reality, because there is an objective standard underlying all moralities, no. But if there weren't, then yes, it may well be impossible, especially when you try to generalize. Two people may certainly find common ground on one particular issue. But add more people and/or more issues, and mutual incompatibility becomes all but inevitable. Simple scenario:
Anne and Bill agree on issues 1 and 2, but disagree on issue 3.
Anne and Cate agree on issues 1 and 3, but disagree on issue 2.
Bill and Cate agree on issues 2 and 3, but disagree on issue 1.
This is irresolvable.
I should clarify that the potential for irresolvable scenarios is not in itself an argument against subjectivism. It may be that subjectivism is true and sometimes scenarios really are irresolvable. That's fine. I'm not trying to disprove subjectivism in these paragraphs. I'm just trying to show you that subjectivism doesn't allow you to do what you want to do.
So, to bring this back around to the topic, there is no a priori reason under subjectivism for you to expect that you can find common principles justifying hate speech legislation between the U.S. and Canada - much less between the U.S., Canada, and, say, Iran.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Statism is the application of force and regimentation to ensure the continuance of itself. The State itself is a formation of a select group that use popular support to enforce their position of power through collectivization. Neither is natural for a civilized society. Both are detrimental to said civilized society as they promote violence and criminality.
Altruism is a fallacy. It's merely the thought that one can cure themselves of guilt by giving of one's self to another. The whole idea is based upon guilt and Divine Morality.
The City-States didn't exile, the simply killed the offenders. Exile in the way you are referring to wasn't a thing until the moralist reformation of the Catholic Church, which lead to the Inquisitions as well. So in reality they didn't start exiling, they merely murdered those they didn't like.
Prison is Statism's method of dealing with those that do not belong according the the Majority rules, or the Power rule. It can be either depending on what stage of the decay the particular State is going through. All states are in constant decay. Divine Morality dictates that no State can ever be in Reverence, as it violates the concept of the Original Sin. Modern Statism is based on Divine Morality.
There hasn't been a homogeneous society on this planet for quite some time. Even the Pigmy's and other assorted natives around the world's jungles have adopted traditions and customs from some other societies. Hate Speech is a talking point, nothing more.
Have you ever actually read the history of these groups? They are not just groups with a few members, they are entire cultures unto themselves. By any real definition they are independent societies. I think your being too simplistic here, and do not actually understand what it is that you are talking about. Your heavy use of Dialectics is giving it away.
No, actually you are making it sound more complex than it really is. So it's not really fascinating. Anyone that actually just lives their lives experiences this everyday. The term sub-culture is inherently flawed and based on the perspective of the State defining culture, which it doesn't. Culture is defined from the Individual perspective, and formulated through these interactions daily. It's merely a matter of perception. The society that evolves it does exist, even if only a more firm version of illusionary bonds.
Most of that is predicated by Statism and it's intolerance. The rest of that commentary was utter nonsense.
The State raises the transaction costs itself by it's mere existence.
That doesn't justify the State or it's interventions. All that does is excuse it for furthering the deterioration of those traditional elements of Societies.
I knew you would get to your point eventually. I know you're really pushing this Dialectics schtick in an effort to do whatever it is that you think it's doing for you, but geez. I could have summed that entire mass of text up in less than four paragraphs.
I can agree with Comsumerism being partially to blame for the advances of Statism, but not the markets. In reality what we have in the world today are not actually markets by definition. A store such as Wal-Mart does not fit the definition of a Market, as there is only the buyer, there are no sellers. Likewise, the Stock Market is not a Market either, as you are only exchanging money for notaries. There are no actual goods or services being sold on the Stock Market. So in reality the Flea Markets, or Farmer's Markets are the only true Markets left in the US. Everything else is highly corporatized warehouses that store goods. It's essentially the Communist dream come true already.
I do enjoy enjoy reading your posts though, even if I find most of your conclusions puzzling with the level of eloquence you use to express them.
Spam infraction. Stay on topic, people.
This is on topic, follow the thread, or quit harassing me. The debate is about defining Morality. This entire post deals with defining Morality.
Personal agreement doesn't change the fact that no one here had any say in how the laws are written or enforced.
If by justice you mean state sponsored revenge...
Both are still crimes of emotion. If there is no reasonable standard for the judgement of how something is determined to be a criminal how can you have a rational and reasonable application of the punishment for said crimes? How can you determine that one crime of that nature is infinitely worse than another? How do you quantify that?
By shear numerical quantity? If that is the case then why do we not have those that drop bombs on brown people and those that order them to do so in prison, because they kill a lot more than some wacko that planned a mass-killing. What about Auto-Manufacturers when they sell vehicles that kill several people?
By emotional content? Then some child that is left over from his mother being killed by her EX should be the priority?
There is no real answer to this. It's best to simply leave one condition for all, and let everyone accept it, or is it? You tell me, because I would not be so bold as to assume that I would know how another person would want their Justice/Revenge. Justice and Revenge are essentially the same thing.
Infraction for editing after a moderator.
~~~~~~~~~
Too many to list efficiently. Find me online with the same SN if you want to play, or message me here to set up a time to play.
Modern
~~~~~~~~~
Whatever pile of 75 I throw together the night before without testing. Usually: :symb::symu::symg:
Damn, you're right. Silly me. Should have been:
Anne and Bill agree on issue 1, but disagree on issues 2 and 3.
Anne and Cate agree on issue 2, but disagree on issues 1 and 3.
Bill and Cate agree on issue 3, but disagree on issues 1 and 2.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Which seems to me to be an argument in favour of why wildly disparate cultures seemingly can't come to agreement on issues that both think they're objectively right about.
Great strides have been made in getting sexual orientation (and to a lesser extent gender identity and expression) onto various states' lists. In places where that's the case, they're entitled to the same protection as any other group. In places where it's not, then they aren't, but that's not to say that they shouldn't be.
I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish by talking about "legitimacy." However, some governments do think it's okay to kill gay people (Uganda, for instance, with that Kill The Gays bill it keeps trying to pass), and while I can condemn that attitude based upon my own standards, I can't say that it's objectively wrong of them.
And?
Well, minority stress is a real thing, and it's largely caused by intangible factors, and hate speech functions quite effectively as an external stressor. As for harassment, it's noteworthy that individual comments can and often are punished by private entities (such as company HR departments punishing sexist comments as being sexual harassment), where someone asking the same questions you are would likely see no problem unless some physical action was taken.
They might have agreed on the metrics, but disagreed on the details.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Hold on there, sparky. I want actual, solid proof that there is such an objective standard. Real, quantitative evidence, not qualitative evidence, not some kind of philosophical argument. If you're going to make such a claim, then mere assertion is insufficient.
It apparently would, since we seem to have over 500 posts of apparently irresolvable difference, at least under what shared standards we're currently debating under.
That, however, doesn't preclude analysis of those countries to determine what common principles may exist.
If he's going to make such a big deal that such a thing objectively exists, then I want solid proof, not theory. What exactly such proof entails would be up to the one who's attempting to prove it.
I frankly find it rather hypocritical that a transgender listed as the new gender can enter into a heterosexual marriage either before or after and maintain that marriage. So essentially gay marriage is legal depending on the timing rules.
I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish by talking about "legitimacy." However, some governments do think it's okay to kill gay people (Uganda, for instance, with that Kill The Gays bill it keeps trying to pass), and while I can condemn that attitude based upon my own standards, I can't say that it's objectively wrong of them.[/QUOTE]
A part of the blame for that has been evangelism into Africa has helped to spread hate towards gays. The core of that message would be interrupted as the state stepping into the realm of religion to spurn that speech in areas such as the States from whence those missionaries come.
It uses tax money to go after people saying and selling product, that in the US after breaking the back of the main outlets and through major social up shot that culminated into almost a Second American Civil War.
You have yet to establish that the transaction costs for going after individuals in such a manner does not drive the talk underground altogether to create a black market with spill over effects such as forbidden fruit syndrome that has helped to popularize drugs.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Well, given that part of this involves convincing me that such a thing is in fact possible, I'd say it's fair that I can't really give you an idea of what I'm looking for.
By pointing out that your argument doesn't really work as it seems to operate under some kind of assumption that I can only argue for preservation of the status quo.
Now, if you want an argument that objective morality exists, you know very well that people have been writing big fat books on the question for thousands of years. And I think you know that it's my special area of interest; I won't say I could write a big fat book of my own (gimme a break, I'm only a B.A.), but I could write quite a lot. So there's a reason I didn't press the claim for this thread. Start a new thread in Philosophy if you really want to hear about it. For here, I'll just point out that some human behaviors regularly and demonstrably result in a greater flourishing of human culture and well-being than other human behaviors: life in South Korea is better than life in North Korea, and the behavior of the Koreans (in this case, the ruling-class Koreans) is the cause of that.
Now, I'd ask for your reaction to my argument, the one about subjectivism and irresolvability. But you seem to have tacitly accepted it.
Well, there was my humble suggestion that "free speech" was a common principle - since, y'know, it's written as a common principle in our highest laws. But that didn't go over too well for some reason.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Personally, I read a statement like this and can only think "'better' is based on arbitrary metrics" (metrics I may well agree with, but my point stands), and that when you get into less stark comparisons, such as Canada versus the US, or France vs Sweden, or whatever, these "objective" conclusions become increasingly harder to draw. Either way, no matter what kinds of patterns emerge, this doesn't mean much of anything for a supposed system that exists independently of human culture and society.
Because in all cases it's more "free speech within specific limitations." The US draws specific lines, Canada draws others, and other countries draw yet different lines.
One of the things that makes Canada vs the US a bit less comparable, though, is what freedom means to each country. Canada, in general, tends to see freedom in terms of freedom to do things. In this case, we're free to express ourselves within certain limitations. The US, in general, tends to see freedom in terms of having freedom from things. In this case, the freedom from having one's expression unduly restricted. What appears on the outside to be similar principles actually wind up being a lot more different than expected.
I think you're seeing a distinction where none exists. Free speech is by definition a freedom to do a thing, no matter what country you're in. And other rights (e.g., due process) are by definition freedoms from things, again no matter what country you're in.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
But from that point of view, is that "free" speech? Or merely "allowed" speech?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
That's exactly what I'm getting at. Freedom from one thing and the freedom to do another thing are two different views of freedom in principle. It does link a bit into the difference between the "we're giving you this freedom" view (e.g. the Canadian view, where the Charter of Rights and Freedoms simply says "everyone has" freedom of expression) and the "we're protecting a freedom we believe everyone already has" view (e.g. the American view, such as how the Declaration of Independence states everyone is "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"). Both types of speech are free within their established boundaries, but the nature of each freedom is very different. Which in turn is reflected a bit in how each country views government, where the American federal government's duties work on a "they're only what we say they are" system, and the Canadian federal government's work on a "they're everything except what we say they aren't" system. So sweeping hate speech legislation would be anathema to how America sees government even though it's well within how Canada sees government.
Basically what I'm getting at is that these kinds of differences take something that seems very similar between two neighbouring countries and render it very different in reality.
So... does the debate stop there? Or can we evaluate both positions by some other measure? Because the Canadian mentality towards government, as you've identified it, seems really dangerous with respect to some things. Maybe you just complain more often, so nobody gets particularly creative with their governance?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Well, I did only focus on the ways in which they're different rather than the ways in which they're similar. It's not to say that the latter category doesn't exist. And I don't think the Canadian mentality is overly dangerous, since in practice it simply inverts the American system—America grants power to the states unless stated otherwise, and Canada grants power to the federal government unless stated otherwise. America's about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Canada's about "peace, order, and good government" (or if you're in Quebec, "paix, ordre, et bon gouvernement"), so each works according to its principles. If the Canadian system is "dangerous," then so is the American system, albeit on more, smaller scales but with added fragmentation on the whole, as each state can do on their own level what the Canadian federal government can do on a national level, although constitutional differences do preclude any given state from enacting hate speech legislation like Canada has. And as a point I've made before in this thread, when someone's raised on a specific ideology, they're much more likely to internalize that ideology (in the case of this thread, Americans seeing freedom of speech as meaning freedom from having restrictions on speech outside what currently exists) as being inherently good, and anything that challenges or is contrary to that ideology (in the case of this thread, Canada feeling hate speech legislation is an entirely acceptable restriction on the freedom of speech its government grants its citizens) as being inherently bad. It's something to be aware about when trying to discuss these issues in comparison to different societies with different values, as there's a definite pattern in this thread of Americans arguing against hate speech legislation and non-Americans arguing for it, and I can think of few to no examples of this pattern being broken.
I didn't say it was overly dangerous, just possibly in certain areas, and in my opinion.
It's definitely not perfect, especially as exemplified by the current Tea Party bizarro world of certain "red states." But I guess I (perhaps romantically) like the idea of a "constructed government," from the bottom up, rather than lumped together and then carved away. On a whole both philosophies have served people pretty well (the European countries aren't less liberal than America, for all their top-down mentality), but both generate problems. I guess we'll have to see which one is more conducive to reform, and in what ways.
I don't think it's inherently bad, just (thus far) unjustified. It might not mean anything, but you did use the word "feeling" as opposed to "demonstrating" or "deciding (with justification)"...
It could be a geographic peculiarity. Or not. *shrug*
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
For the record, I'm going to speak on this. In each tyrannical situation, power is granted specifically to the federal government on the basis of "It's for the good of the people." In a government like this, you do not have rights unless the government says so.
Tell me, do you want to live in a country where the whims of the political party that has a majority gets to decide what you go and do not get to do? I'll let you know now, in every situation where such a government has sprouted, there has been suppression of the people.
Look to Nazi Germany. Look to the USSR. Look to China. Look to South Africa during the apartheid years. Look to Iran, Syria, and many Middle Eastern nations now.
The people are the basis of the democratic government. Whether a representative republic or a true democracy, retaining more power at the federal level and stripping that power from the people is the antithesis to the true Democratic process.
I am not saying that Canada is going to go the way of Nazi Germany. I do, however, think it is very dangerous to concentrate all the power in a minority group of politicians, "for the good of the community".
Congress has been doing this for years. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled against them when they get out of hand. Thank God, too.
You've already stated that there is a severe gap between Canada and the United States' variations in government. You can not say that we are the same in the same breath as saying it isn't. It doesn't work.
I...really don't think you understand the history of the United States. I seriously don't. I would recommend at least looking up the history behind why the Constitution was drafted the way it was before you start in on this again.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Name's Brian, used to be in my signature prior to having to make space for the Solaran quote.
and I haven't really argued for or against the actual hate speech legislation per se, just pointed out flaws in argumentation I found present and the rampant ethnocentrism.