So all rights are contingent? That is, are there any rights that are intrinsic to being a member of the human species (or even, by extension, a "mind")?
Pretty much. One of the main parts of my arguments involve there being no such thing as rights beyond human social/legal/etc structures (i.e. human artifice). For instance, a person accused of a crime might be granted the right to legal counsel—it's the government and the legal system which both grant that right and ensure it's followed through with, and which ensure that breaches of that system are dealt with (in practice it's a bit stickier than this, but that's the theory anyway). When speaking of, say, freedom of speech granted beyond the scope of human artifice, you run into the roadbump of having to say who or what grants and enforces this right. Certainly, a person who doesn't have some form of speech impediment can physically say anything they want, but that alone doesn't make free speech a right (e.g. a person can physically kill another person, but we don't talk about a "right to murder" as some kind of fundamental right).
And in some of those countries the hate speech legislation has been abused, mostly by Islamic fundamentalists, to censor criticism. So there are problems.
Perhaps, but the argument was more that freedom of speech with as loose restrictions as America has isn't shared by the entire world (or even the entire developed world). Both free speech with America's restrictions and free speech with tighter restrictions have their upsides and downsides, their uses and abuses. The argument at that point pretty much centres around what goals are placed upon speech legislation and what types of restrictions work best to facilitate those goals.
If that happens, we tolerant and sane folks will rally the troops and drown out the bigots with our own voices. The point is that free-speech laws don't defend people, they just allow people to say whatever crap they want. If a vocal racist gets metaphorically thrashed and raked over the coals, well, that's what everyone else thinks of horrible people.
The simplest example of hate speech let run rampant is all the religious homophobia you see thrown around American society. It isn't limited to the unquestionably-bigoted Fred Phelps types, either. Major churches lobby for unequal rights based upon sexuality, and major churches do things like run "ex-gay" camps—imagine the uproar if someone were to run an "ex-Christian" camp that engaged in torturous practices and you'll see why this is a bad thing (the comparison is slightly flawed as religious belief isn't an inborn trait, but they're both protected classes under Canadian law). These kinds of practices exist because America lets a hate-filled homophobic backbone permeate its culture with naught but an "it's just words, and words don't do anything on their own."
And even beyond that, there's an example to be found in Islamophobia. Widespread "they're all terrorists" rhetoric, as well as people like Ann Coulter calling for invasion and genocide, and all manner of other reinforcements of prejudice, create an environment where hatred flourishes. Simply existing in such an environment places minority stress upon an individual, to say nothing of what discrimination, harassment, etc can do. Those kinds of bigots might get raked over the coals every now and then, but they're still entrenched enough that a disturbing number of people take them seriously.
But I don't think it's the law's fault that people engage in wishful thinking and don't act like mature adults.
However, I think it's the law's responsibility to keep people from hurting each other unduly. We already see this with laws against assault/battery, larceny, harassment, and so forth. It's a lot harder to get away with a religiously-motivated lynching than, say, driving others to suicide (as so many LGBT people have been), and it's an attitude that social structures don't contribute to the latter which does so much to bolster the attitude that it's okay to say/do whatever your religion wants so long as you aren't directly hurting someone.
Pretty much. One of the main parts of my arguments involve there being no such thing as rights beyond human social/legal/etc structures (i.e. human artifice).
Does this subjectivity extend to whether a right is legitimate? So, like, was the right to freedom from slavery legitimate before some government/society granted it to some population?
The simplest example of hate speech let run rampant is all the religious homophobia you see thrown around American society.
Hm, yeah, we have that, and it's disgusting. But American society is becoming less homophobic, more LGBT-friendly, and the religious bigots are getting called out on it more and more. I don't think we need censorship laws, and I doubt they would really help the process along. Indeed, it might even be a setback since it would be more obviously adversarial and top-down; even wingnuts tend to shut up if it's obvious that a vast majority accept something. Moral zeitgeist!
And even beyond that, there's an example to be found in Islamophobia.
Which is a problem even in Europe. Arguably more so; I've heard more about the EDL and other thugs taking to the streets there. Here we mostly have frothy-mouthed bloggers and the occasional small church group. Hateful idiots, sure, but... *shrug* A lot of the time it's just an invisible-friend pissing contest, from my point of view.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
No, no they aren't. This is a rather telling failing of your arguments. A right that someone "has" is a right granted to that person by some kind of authority.
What? I try to clarify what I mean, and you come back with "No, that's wrong, you don't mean that"? I have just explained to you that in my usage, "have" and "ought to have" are synonymous with respect to rights. That is, when I say "You have this right" I mean "You ought to have this right" (and vice versa). If you don't like this usage, fine, whatever. Your dislike doesn't change what I mean when I use it. So when you allege that I am unjustly applying American law to non-Americans, that is false.
Really now? Canada has hate speech legislation, as does the UK, France, and Germany. So basically the majority of the G7. Many other developed nations such as Australia, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Sweden, and Switzerland also have hate speech laws of some description.
Is your argument then that hypocrisy, sufficiently widespead, ceases to be hypocrisy? All of these countries are built on liberal principles, and all of them (to the best of my knowledge, I'm not going to check them all) promise their citizens the right to free speech in their highest laws - making them "rights" even as you understand the term. If all of these countries have hate speech legislation, then all of these countries have inconsistent laws.
No, it was a good call. You just missed the point of it. The point was to draw a clear parallel to something else America holds dear but is, in reality, controversial on an international level.
If this is true, then I can't help but be confused at why you wanted to make that point there. On no rhetorical level does it make sense to attach that point to an assertive statement of your position, "The harm from hate speech warrants legislation". It's like saying, "I think the Higgs boson exists, just like it's controversial that God exists".
It's more that your understanding of criminology needs work, given that repealing the death penalty, improving prison health care, placing greater emphasis on rehabilitation/preventative measures, etc benefit society quite a bit by lowering overall crime rate, easing burdens on the legal system, and raising the number of productive members of society (criminals who'd otherwise re-offend and get put right back into the prison system instead being rehabilitated, etc).
No, it's definitely your logic. Nothing you have said here is at all relevant to my reductio ad absurdum argument, which in fact agrees with you on every point of criminology you've made, and which I may restate a bit more formally as follows:
Let us assume that what Teia said is true: policies which benefit bad people are bad.
Prison reform benefits bad people.
Therefore, prison reform is bad.
But prison reform is not bad (for all the excellent reasons Teia gave).
Therefore, the assumption that led to that conclusion is false.
Therefore, what Teia said is false.
To which the only reasonable response is to concede that you said something silly and move on.
Or when hate speech creates and exacerbates prejudice and discrimination, or when it promotes genocide, etc. A crucial difference between us is that I'm willing to consider indirect effects as being worth legislation, while you don't.
Yes, that is a crucial difference between us. The problem with "indirect effects" is that you can't prove them in a court of law. If I incite a riot, the prosecution can demonstrate a clear chain of events that starts with my action and ends with harm or risk of harm to specific people at a specific time and place. If I publish a Holocaust denial screed, yes, you're right, it might contribute to a certain atmosphere of hate that gives some skinheads somewhere the confidence to do something bad that they otherwise wouldn't. But it also might not do that. And a court can't tell whether it did or didn't. So in this case, I benefit from the presumption of innocence.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To make sure that I understand this right...governments, presumably by virtue of the abilities given then by the individuals they govern, grant all of the rights that people have to people? Are there no inalienable rights, then? And how are we to decide which rights are appropriate? Or are they merely relative? I.e., you get whichever rights your government gives you, and tough **** if you think that you should have more.
Pretty much, since there exists no kind of "higher power" or personified "natural law" that grants rights beyond what human constructs such as government grant to individuals under their authority.
Kind of sounds like you're relenting to moral relativism there, Teia....I hope that I am misreading this.
I don't see any problem in what I'm doing. I openly admitted to moral nihilism/relativism earlier in the thread.
Even if the gov't hasn't given them the right to not be hurt unduly?
That's one of those cases where it's implicit rather than explicit. The rationale behind many laws involves protecting people from undue harm.
Does this subjectivity extend to whether a right is legitimate? So, like, was the right to freedom from slavery legitimate before some government/society granted it to some population?
Legitimacy is an artificial construct. Back in the day, slavery was considered legitimate, and as cultural norms changed over the years, it was considered illegitimate. There's no objective basis to measure legitimacy either way.
But American society is becoming less homophobic, more LGBT-friendly, and the religious bigots are getting called out on it more and more.
In some areas, sure. In other areas, well... North Carolina had that rather disastrous gay marriage vote earlier this year, the Prop 8 battle is still continuing, and politicians can get away with advocating violence, just to pick a few examples (the first two explicitly being motivated by religious belief, at that). Bigotry might be on the decline, but it's a slow decline, due in no small part to the fact that bigots and bigoted organizations are free to spew whatever hateful bile they want in often successful attempts to sway the ignorant.
I don't think we need censorship laws, and I doubt they would really help the process along.
Try not to think of hate speech laws as being for the sake of censorship. Censorship is a means, not the end. It's like having laws against assault and harassment. Yes, you're limiting what people can say, but you're doing so to prevent those people from harming others. Censorship laws do periodically get advanced in American politics, but they don't take the form of hate speech legislation (although they might assume the veneer of them for the appearance of legitimacy), and are better exemplified by TN's Don't Say Gay bill and its ilk.
Here we mostly have frothy-mouthed bloggers and the occasional small church group.
And politicians, apparently. There's a tendency to downplay bigotry in mainstream media, politics, etc, but it's very much there if you know how to look for it.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Is your argument then that hypocrisy, sufficiently widespead, ceases to be hypocrisy? All of these countries are built on liberal principles, and all of them (to the best of my knowledge, I'm not going to check them all) promise their citizens the right to free speech in their highest laws - making them "rights" even as you understand the term. If all of these countries have hate speech legislation, then all of these countries have inconsistent laws.
Well, I can't speak for other countries offhand, but Canada doesn't promise "free speech" with no restrictions, but rather freedom of expression within reasonable limitations. Even America does so to some extent—refer to the Supreme Court judge I quoted earlier in the thread who sees restriction of certain forms of speech (in that case fighting words) as being consistent with the first amendment.
Let us assume that what Teia said is true: policies which benefit bad people are bad.
...
To which the only reasonable response is to concede that you said something silly and move on.
Even when I described in my post that the benefit to society outweighs any downsides from benefit to bad people? Which would make it entirely consistent with my argument that the benefits of hate speech legislation outweigh its downsides—a rather central argument on my part. You're not even trying to represent my arguments accurately and completely right now. In any case, your premise there is false, so your argument is unsound.
And in case you need things spelled out as simply as possible: The difference between this example of restorative justice and abolition of certain hate speech laws is that what's considered the upsides of the latter (adherence to some abstract belief that unrestricted freedom of speech is absolutely good) do not outweigh its downsides (the harm to identifiable groups by allowing bigots free reign to harm others through hate speech).
If I publish a Holocaust denial screed, yes, you're right, it might contribute to a certain atmosphere of hate that gives some skinheads somewhere the confidence to do something bad that they otherwise wouldn't. But it also might not do that. And a court can't tell whether it did or didn't.
Which is why it's better to ban incitement of hatred and promotion of genocide than to let people who hide behind some thin pretence of "but I'm not doing anything directly" perpetuate real harm towards identifiable groups. It's hard to prove that any individual stone in a hailstorm caused someone actual pain... but it's easy to show that the hailstorm as a whole did so.
Alternatively, think of it like the fallacy of the beard. One singular instance of hate speech doesn't necessarily cause significant harm to people... but there comes a point where minority stress definitely kicks in, and where prejudice, discrimination, and worse are socially acceptable. You might not be able to point at a single act of hate speech which tips the scales from "bad thing we tolerate because the upsides outweigh the downsides" to "social problems now exist and something needs to be done about them," but that doesn't mean the underlying causes of those social problems shouldn't be treated.
The real issue with hate speech laws, anyway, is that in a white, capitalist society they are more likely to be used against people like Jeremiah Wright or leftists in general than they are to silence the stereotypical bible-thumping homophobe. Take a look at stalking laws in the UK. They were ostensibly intended to protect women but have been used against those protesting the status quo.
This seems to speak out against hate speech laws. Is that your position? (I'm asking because I'm genuinely not sure).
As for the US, well, let's just say that nobody readies the predator drones when American Nazis call for the destruction of the US but once a Muslim Arab on the other side of the world says the same thing it's assassination time.
Hundreds of people call for the destruction fo the US across the world on a daily basis. Assassination time doesn't happen until the person starts (successfully) taking steps to try and implement it.
Of course, laws that guarantee free speech are ignored when it comes to those who seek to genuinely challenge capitalist power so eh. The answer is still pretty obvious but y'know. Might as well keep the order of priorities in mind.
I'll not argue that they haven't been ignored in the past (McCarthyism), but are there any current examples of this?
The real issue with hate speech laws, anyway, is that in a white, capitalist society they are more likely to be used against people like Jeremiah Wright or leftists in general than they are to silence the stereotypical bible-thumping homophobe. Take a look at stalking laws in the UK. They were ostensibly intended to protect women but have been used against those protesting the status quo.
If that's the case, then why are Germany and Canada's laws specifically in contradiction to your claim?
As for the US, well, let's just say that nobody readies the predator drones when American Nazis call for the destruction of the US but once a Muslim Arab on the other side of the world says the same thing it's assassination time.
That would be because the Constitution would be preventing the United States federal government form using such tactics and technology against Americans. The Constitution has a specific area dealing with treasonous actions, not words (though President Obama and Congress have been psuing to ignore that for a while).
Also as was pointed out, speaking it doesn't mean that we are going to kill you. When you decide to sit in your basement in the middle of Jihadiville and start making bombs, then we do something because now you're acting on that.
Of course, laws that guarantee free speech are ignored when it comes to those who seek to genuinely challenge capitalist power so eh. The answer is still pretty obvious but y'know. Might as well keep the order of priorities in mind.
I believe I pointed out that when it comes right down to it, the Supreme Court has said that laws curbing or attempting to limit free speech have consistently been struck down as unConstitutional.
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."
What does Germany's and Canada's laws have to do with something being more or less likely? What were the odds for them?
Considering you said the following...
Quote from The real issue with hate speech laws, anyway, is that in a white, capitalist society they are more likely to be used against people like Jeremiah Wright or leftists in general than they are to silence the stereotypical bible-thumping homophobe.[/quote »
...you are (once-again) saying that a capitalist society is anti-minority and pro-white, and that white people are the devil, yadda yadda yadda (going on your past posts here). So, are you claiming that England, Germany, and Canada are not "capitalist"? Because they most certainly are not socialist (though teetering on it), or communist.
[quote]Fat lot of good being American did Anwar al-Alauqi.
And as I said, there were a lot of people - myself included - who said this was wrong. And you know what? People like myself and Oath Keepers (who are very public on their outrage towards this as well as other infringements) are deemed "possible right-wing extremists" by the federal government; namely, this administration.
There appears to be no need for a law to have Free Speech Zones, then, or to drench protesters in tear gas. Never mind the whole deal with deeming corporate donations to be free speech so y'know, it aint like it aint a massively wonky concept in practice.
Another topic, and honestly you are just doing this.
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."
Pretty much, since there exists no kind of "higher power" or personified "natural law" that grants rights beyond what human constructs such as government grant to individuals under their authority.
So what gives those so called Authorities the right to be the authority then?
The real issue with hate speech laws, anyway, is that in a white, capitalist society they are more likely to be used against people like Jeremiah Wright or leftists in general than they are to silence the stereotypical bible-thumping homophobe.
Not sure if your specific example is true, but more generally yeah. Majority groups and dominant groups will tend to be harsher on minorities then on themselves. Human bias, unfortunately.
As for the US, well, let's just say that nobody readies the predator drones when American Nazis call for the destruction of the US but once a Muslim Arab on the other side of the world says the same thing it's assassination time.
And as I said, there were a lot of people - myself included - who said this was wrong. And you know what? People like myself and Oath Keepers (who are very public on their outrage towards this as well as other infringements) are deemed "possible right-wing extremists" by the federal government; namely, this administration.
I don't want to derail the thread, but I don't exactly understand the "assassination" schtick, in light of the fact that surely American citizens defected to Nazi Germany and we don't lose sleep over the fact that they died on the battlefield? Or is there a detail I'm missing?
And when it comes to Oathkeepers, I don't think that's specifically the reason for the label, more that they're well-armed and at least halfway convinced that the Federal government will turn American cities into "giant concentration camps." That is, it's a bit conspiratorial. However, I don't think the label of extremism extends to censorship. After all, you can go to even more extreme sources like Stormfront or (on the left) the ALF or even weirder fringe groups. We just don't want to be surprised if someone takes the message too far and wants to blow up, say, a federal building. *cough*
But there's a good point hiding under there:
@Teia, suppose (magically) every government in the world declared that from then on, all non-government citizens would be considered slaves of the State, and that all previous rights would be abolished. Would that be okay?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
So what gives those so called Authorities the right to be the authority then?
I think that would be whatever -ocracy or -archy the country was ruled by. If the government doesn't grant rights that the population wants, they either show there voice through votes, violence or protest.
I think that would be whatever -ocracy or -archy the country was ruled by. If the government doesn't grant rights that the population wants, they either show there voice through votes, violence or protest.
So here's a question: what happens if a government decides to take away rights that some people may disagree with (in this case, let's say the right to speak freely - truly freely). What happens, then, if the people rise up against the government because they feel that that is a right they should have? Should the government, then, decide that the "hate speech" laws should be repealed to stop the violence?
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."
For one, I don't think any country legally allows people within it 'truly' free speech. But after that, if a substantial group rise up to get their country that rule, the government can decide to repeal it. I would disagree with these people rising up, but in this specific situation not enough to oppose them (if it came to violence).
If it were just a fringe group then why would the government cave? The general populace still generally supports it and you can't have a government that just caves to terrorists/violent fringe groups.
As for the US, well, let's just say that nobody readies the predator drones when American Nazis call for the destruction of the US but once a Muslim Arab on the other side of the world says the same thing it's assassination time.
Of course, laws that guarantee free speech are ignored when it comes to those who seek to genuinely challenge capitalist power so eh. The answer is still pretty obvious but y'know. Might as well keep the order of priorities in mind.
The idiot Nazi is demonstrating and selling hate music on itunes, the Arab Islamofascist is plotting to blow up people with an underwear bomb with an African dying "for the cause." That's globalization for you.
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.
I think that would be whatever -ocracy or -archy the country was ruled by. If the government doesn't grant rights that the population wants, they either show there voice through votes, violence or protest.
That doesn't answer the question though. That is merely making a statement of ownership of the masses by the whatever "...cracy" you wish to blame. I asked for an answer, and I know none of you will probably ever be able to answer it correctly. I already know the answer to it, but I want to see if any of you can figure it out. I'll give you guys a hint, Spooner wrote about this very topic.
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:
That is inherently incorrect. The correct answer is..............
You can not by mere circumstances of birth in a specific geographical region, give your rights to another person. When you are born you are incapable of giving rights to anyone, because you are incapable of fully understanding how to do so, or to actually do it. You never signed a contract, and by mere acknowledgment of the State, you do not give acquiescence to the power of the state. The only way that the State, or those Authorities that use the State have power is by stealing it from the people within the lines drawn on the geographic region they lay claim to. There is no such thing as the Social Contract, it's a BS lie that they tell you to keep you believing that they have the power. It is only through daily belief that they have the power that you give them by not acknowledging your rights as an Individual. In reality, it's only your imagination that creates the illusion that makes it true. Once you can get past that point, their grasp on power becomes clear to what it really is. The threat of Force and the use of open Coercion. At the very core, it is slavery.
Plato talked about the Noble Lie, which is where the Social Contract idea came from. Lysander Spooner wrote about all of this in the 1800's, and his work actually lead to the core of the Abolition movement.
So...you're equating moral relativism and anarchy?
Harkius
I'm not sure where you are getting your definition of Moral Relativism from, but it's inaccurate. Moral Relativism is saying that you can not say your Morality is the same as a guy in Japan because of cultural norms. Which honestly is nothing more than a form of Divine Morality rather than Ethical Morality.
What I am discussing here is independent of Morality. It's based upon Negative and Positive Rights, which were formulated from Natural Law.
I was conflating the definitions of moral nihilism and moral relativism.
Now, are you equating moral nihilism and anarchy?
Harkius
I'm headed out to play some Modern, but I will get back to this question and give you an answer tonight. It's not as simple as equate=ing it to Morality, which is why I will answer it more fully later.
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:
This is the part I absolutely HATE about the "moral relativist" angle.
I do not believe in an Objective morality. I believe morality is just a construct of human opinions on behavior writ large. I believe Morality is subjective, just like Freedom, Justice, Oppression, and almost every other concept of human control.
However, just because someone doesn't believe in a "Lawgiver" or god, or some other supreme moral authority, does NOT mean they have to be all wishy-washy.
I am a moral subjectivist. However, I believe that the rights and freedoms we granted to ourselves through declaration and bought with blood and sacrifice are the BEST around.
Freedom of Speech, religion, fair trials, secure persons and property against unlawful searches and seizures, equality for all races, genders, and creeds...etc.
America is not implementing these rights perfectly, and because of human nature, we may never. Just look at the Patriot Act, or NDAA, or bans on gay marriage. We still have a long way to go.
However - we are 10000 times better than Syria, or Iran, or some other ****ed up sharia law places.
I may not believe in an Objective morality, but I do believe some moral systems are better than others. I also believe that the better moral systems have a responsibility to erradicate those crappy systems out there like Sharia Law.
I don't see how it can be any other way.
If you TRULY believe that the way someone behaves or the way they treat others is WRONG - then you have to do something about it. Objective, or not.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
Well, to me, saying something is subjective doesn't mean you can't say "I think this is the best system around." It just means to me that to each subject, what is right and wrong (moral) will be different.
I do believe that many freedoms of the western world would be better choices for all nations, but no matter how strongly I believe this, it doesn't change the fact that each person there may believe differently. This is the nature of democracy; find what the most people within a society feel is right/wrong and make a social/legal code based on this.
For something like slavery, with my upbringing and location, it is very unlikely that I would think it a moral good for others to be enslaved. Go back a few centuries and you would be lying to yourself to say it wouldn't be highly likely to feel the opposite. When the idea of inalienable rights came about, it seems people took them to be inalienable -- if you were a straight, white and male.
There is no such thing as the Social Contract, it's a BS lie that they tell you to keep you believing that they have the power.
It's also the same lie that keeps people from being egoistic *******s to each other, really. Hopefully there will come a day of explicit social contracts, but we have to stick with implicit ones because what's the alternative?
For something like slavery, with my upbringing and location, it is very unlikely that I would think it a moral good for others to be enslaved. Go back a few centuries and you would be lying to yourself to say it wouldn't be highly likely to feel the opposite. When the idea of inalienable rights came about, it seems people took them to be inalienable -- if you were a straight, white and male.
True, but if we agree on a certain standard of truth-finding (namely, skeptical reasoning and evidence) then slavery is wrong always and everywhere. Same with bigotry, totalitarian rule, and all the other abject failures in history.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
So, if there are no inalienable rights and all rights are granted at the whim of the government (and, presumably, all laws are enacted on that basis), why do you think that there should be a special dispensation for hate speech? The government hasn't made one, so there is problem with it.
From a Canadian perspective, an equally valid question would be, "Why shouldn't there be?" Just because there are no inalienable rights doesn't mean that no consensus can be reached about which rights should be granted. It just means that such rights are decided on other grounds.
The problem with the moral relativism you've constructed is that you can't really argue that your rights are being violated...you don't have any rights. (Except the ones that your government grants you.)
And if any of the rights granted to me by the government are violated, then I can quite accurately say my rights have been violated. If someone violates something I think should be a right but isn't, then I construct my argument against it on other grounds.
I'm unclear on the idea of an implicit right in the framework of moral relativism, and especially moral nihilism.
If a government sets up a legal system along a specific framework, such as undue harm being wrong (and as such laws against assault, battery, murder, larceny, fraud, etc), then there are underlying tenants to those laws.
I think that it might be important here to point out that there is a difference between harming others in the physical sense and words. Many people, whether you agree with it or not, don't think of words as being particularly harmful.
Psychological harm is a very real thing. Minority stress is a related and equally real concept. And of course there's a reason why assault and harassment are crimes even when they don't actually lead to anything physical.
Uh...if the government doesn't give you that right, then the benefit is not really important, is it?
It is when considering whether or not to grant that right.
Is there an objective reason to prioritize the upsides and downsides this way?
Why would there be?
Which is why we punish the hailstones that go through someone's windshield, not the ones that hit the street.
This is more about nitpicking inconsequential details in the metaphor than actually arguing against it. If instead of someone's windshield, we have someone pelted with ping pong ball sized hailstones until they die, how do we determine which ones actually hit the person and which ones didn't? At any rate, the person's just as dead even if we punish the individual hailstones that struck them—it would be more prudent to take a preventative approach and thus keep the storm from brewing to begin with.
Let me just say that it's bizarre to watch a moral nihilist talk about what is right and wrong.
Just because I don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean I can't make subjective calls.
I believe I pointed out that when it comes right down to it, the Supreme Court has said that laws curbing or attempting to limit free speech have consistently been struck down as unConstitutional.
Justice Frank Murphy, in writing the decision of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (which established the fighting words doctrine), wrote, "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
So it seems to me that they don't see limiting free speech to be a problem when there's good reason to do so.
@Teia, suppose (magically) every government in the world declared that from then on, all non-government citizens would be considered slaves of the State, and that all previous rights would be abolished. Would that be okay?
"Okay" in any kind of objective sense is a meaningless concept. As far as it being "okay" in a subjective sense, I'm not sure how many people you could find who'd agree it would be.
Justice Frank Murphy, in writing the decision of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (which established the fighting words doctrine), wrote, "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
So it seems to me that they don't see limiting free speech to be a problem when there's good reason to do so.
Please remember to properly quote the entire section if you're not going to use an ellipses. The full quote is as such:
There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.
Those words that are uttered with what is an intent to cause a breach of the peace - namely, incite disorderly conduct - are outside the First Amendment's protection. If I were to say, "I think all **** should burn in Hell because they're an abomination in God's eyes," then when I have said - while morally reprehensible - is still protected free speech under the law. I provide a statement (opinion) and provide a reason for my views. If you decided you didn't like it and took a swing, then you'd be the one at fault under the law (though doubtful it'd be a conviction). With that being said, I would also provide the following:
Quote from Snyder v. Phelps »
"What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."
I would argue that Snyder v. Phelps turns Chaplinsky on it's head, but that's an argument for another day. What's important is that the Supreme Court upheld the rights of someone (or a group) to protest with even the most morally-reprehensible utterances, and that they were protected under the First Amendment. And let's be clear here: I consider Fred Phelps nothing short of an ignorant piece of crap who will probably enjoy his spat in Hell, being anally violated by Satan et al. as punishment for what he preaches. But I support the Court's decision in this matter, even if I don't agree with it on a moral level.
Here's what it comes down to: is what the ignorant say acceptable? Partially yes, partially no. Depending on the nation you live in, you will probably take one side very vehemently. The United States is founded on a code, and that code says that while we may disagree with what you say, you still have that right. There are very few exceptions to this. Chaplinsky is a great showing of this concept. Speech that is designed specifically to cause a disturbance or would reasonably result in a physical altercation is verboten. It is not protected.
But let me ask you this: if the world decided to do this, then what? Hate speech is no longer tolerated. So people decide, "Well, you know what? I can't speak it? Time to put my words into actions!" Then all of a sudden, you have killings of people they don't like. Would you prefer the bigots be public about it so we can ostracize them properly, or would you rather we knew nothing about them until suddenly we have a bunch of black children strung up in a tree?
"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."
From a Canadian perspective, an equally valid question would be, "Why shouldn't there be?" Just because there are no inalienable rights doesn't mean that no consensus can be reached about which rights should be granted. It just means that such rights are decided on other grounds.
A government is an institution created by a society to protect it; it is not the job of the people to argue why laws shouldn't be in place, it is the job of the government, and it's supporters, to argue why they should. "Why shouldn't there be," is not, has not, and will never be a valid argument. It's a hand wave.
But others, most notably BS, have told you this, and you refuse to acknowledge it. Look it up. They aren't the only ones who know this is improper argument.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
How can a moral subjectivist argue for a moral imperative?
It is actually VERY easy.
goes something like "I believe this is morally wrong/right, therefore it is imperative based on my morals to do something."
An "Objective Morality" is not necessary in order to act upon moral codes. We do it everyday and all the time. There is NO proof or evidence for objective morality, yet WE act based upon the moral beliefs we hold.
Believing we have the best set of morals, and acting upon that belief, does not make our set of morals objective anymore than the next guys.
Just look at the conflict between western culture and middle-eastern Islamic culture.
But believing morality is subjective does NOT mean we have to sit with our hands tied and say "oh well, let those people do whatever they want, after all, they have their own morals"
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Pretty much. One of the main parts of my arguments involve there being no such thing as rights beyond human social/legal/etc structures (i.e. human artifice). For instance, a person accused of a crime might be granted the right to legal counsel—it's the government and the legal system which both grant that right and ensure it's followed through with, and which ensure that breaches of that system are dealt with (in practice it's a bit stickier than this, but that's the theory anyway). When speaking of, say, freedom of speech granted beyond the scope of human artifice, you run into the roadbump of having to say who or what grants and enforces this right. Certainly, a person who doesn't have some form of speech impediment can physically say anything they want, but that alone doesn't make free speech a right (e.g. a person can physically kill another person, but we don't talk about a "right to murder" as some kind of fundamental right).
Perhaps, but the argument was more that freedom of speech with as loose restrictions as America has isn't shared by the entire world (or even the entire developed world). Both free speech with America's restrictions and free speech with tighter restrictions have their upsides and downsides, their uses and abuses. The argument at that point pretty much centres around what goals are placed upon speech legislation and what types of restrictions work best to facilitate those goals.
The simplest example of hate speech let run rampant is all the religious homophobia you see thrown around American society. It isn't limited to the unquestionably-bigoted Fred Phelps types, either. Major churches lobby for unequal rights based upon sexuality, and major churches do things like run "ex-gay" camps—imagine the uproar if someone were to run an "ex-Christian" camp that engaged in torturous practices and you'll see why this is a bad thing (the comparison is slightly flawed as religious belief isn't an inborn trait, but they're both protected classes under Canadian law). These kinds of practices exist because America lets a hate-filled homophobic backbone permeate its culture with naught but an "it's just words, and words don't do anything on their own."
And even beyond that, there's an example to be found in Islamophobia. Widespread "they're all terrorists" rhetoric, as well as people like Ann Coulter calling for invasion and genocide, and all manner of other reinforcements of prejudice, create an environment where hatred flourishes. Simply existing in such an environment places minority stress upon an individual, to say nothing of what discrimination, harassment, etc can do. Those kinds of bigots might get raked over the coals every now and then, but they're still entrenched enough that a disturbing number of people take them seriously.
However, I think it's the law's responsibility to keep people from hurting each other unduly. We already see this with laws against assault/battery, larceny, harassment, and so forth. It's a lot harder to get away with a religiously-motivated lynching than, say, driving others to suicide (as so many LGBT people have been), and it's an attitude that social structures don't contribute to the latter which does so much to bolster the attitude that it's okay to say/do whatever your religion wants so long as you aren't directly hurting someone.
Does this subjectivity extend to whether a right is legitimate? So, like, was the right to freedom from slavery legitimate before some government/society granted it to some population?
Hm, yeah, we have that, and it's disgusting. But American society is becoming less homophobic, more LGBT-friendly, and the religious bigots are getting called out on it more and more. I don't think we need censorship laws, and I doubt they would really help the process along. Indeed, it might even be a setback since it would be more obviously adversarial and top-down; even wingnuts tend to shut up if it's obvious that a vast majority accept something. Moral zeitgeist!
Which is a problem even in Europe. Arguably more so; I've heard more about the EDL and other thugs taking to the streets there. Here we mostly have frothy-mouthed bloggers and the occasional small church group. Hateful idiots, sure, but... *shrug* A lot of the time it's just an invisible-friend pissing contest, from my point of view.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I'm not sure why, either, but you certainly seemed to be doing it.
Is your argument then that hypocrisy, sufficiently widespead, ceases to be hypocrisy? All of these countries are built on liberal principles, and all of them (to the best of my knowledge, I'm not going to check them all) promise their citizens the right to free speech in their highest laws - making them "rights" even as you understand the term. If all of these countries have hate speech legislation, then all of these countries have inconsistent laws.
If this is true, then I can't help but be confused at why you wanted to make that point there. On no rhetorical level does it make sense to attach that point to an assertive statement of your position, "The harm from hate speech warrants legislation". It's like saying, "I think the Higgs boson exists, just like it's controversial that God exists".
The entire point of those two sentences was to state that the differences are irrelevant. What did you think I was saying?
No, it's definitely your logic. Nothing you have said here is at all relevant to my reductio ad absurdum argument, which in fact agrees with you on every point of criminology you've made, and which I may restate a bit more formally as follows:
Yes, that is a crucial difference between us. The problem with "indirect effects" is that you can't prove them in a court of law. If I incite a riot, the prosecution can demonstrate a clear chain of events that starts with my action and ends with harm or risk of harm to specific people at a specific time and place. If I publish a Holocaust denial screed, yes, you're right, it might contribute to a certain atmosphere of hate that gives some skinheads somewhere the confidence to do something bad that they otherwise wouldn't. But it also might not do that. And a court can't tell whether it did or didn't. So in this case, I benefit from the presumption of innocence.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Pretty much, since there exists no kind of "higher power" or personified "natural law" that grants rights beyond what human constructs such as government grant to individuals under their authority.
I don't see any problem in what I'm doing. I openly admitted to moral nihilism/relativism earlier in the thread.
That's one of those cases where it's implicit rather than explicit. The rationale behind many laws involves protecting people from undue harm.
Legitimacy is an artificial construct. Back in the day, slavery was considered legitimate, and as cultural norms changed over the years, it was considered illegitimate. There's no objective basis to measure legitimacy either way.
In some areas, sure. In other areas, well... North Carolina had that rather disastrous gay marriage vote earlier this year, the Prop 8 battle is still continuing, and politicians can get away with advocating violence, just to pick a few examples (the first two explicitly being motivated by religious belief, at that). Bigotry might be on the decline, but it's a slow decline, due in no small part to the fact that bigots and bigoted organizations are free to spew whatever hateful bile they want in often successful attempts to sway the ignorant.
Try not to think of hate speech laws as being for the sake of censorship. Censorship is a means, not the end. It's like having laws against assault and harassment. Yes, you're limiting what people can say, but you're doing so to prevent those people from harming others. Censorship laws do periodically get advanced in American politics, but they don't take the form of hate speech legislation (although they might assume the veneer of them for the appearance of legitimacy), and are better exemplified by TN's Don't Say Gay bill and its ilk.
And politicians, apparently. There's a tendency to downplay bigotry in mainstream media, politics, etc, but it's very much there if you know how to look for it.
Well, I can't speak for other countries offhand, but Canada doesn't promise "free speech" with no restrictions, but rather freedom of expression within reasonable limitations. Even America does so to some extent—refer to the Supreme Court judge I quoted earlier in the thread who sees restriction of certain forms of speech (in that case fighting words) as being consistent with the first amendment.
Even when I described in my post that the benefit to society outweighs any downsides from benefit to bad people? Which would make it entirely consistent with my argument that the benefits of hate speech legislation outweigh its downsides—a rather central argument on my part. You're not even trying to represent my arguments accurately and completely right now. In any case, your premise there is false, so your argument is unsound.
And in case you need things spelled out as simply as possible: The difference between this example of restorative justice and abolition of certain hate speech laws is that what's considered the upsides of the latter (adherence to some abstract belief that unrestricted freedom of speech is absolutely good) do not outweigh its downsides (the harm to identifiable groups by allowing bigots free reign to harm others through hate speech).
Which is why it's better to ban incitement of hatred and promotion of genocide than to let people who hide behind some thin pretence of "but I'm not doing anything directly" perpetuate real harm towards identifiable groups. It's hard to prove that any individual stone in a hailstorm caused someone actual pain... but it's easy to show that the hailstorm as a whole did so.
Alternatively, think of it like the fallacy of the beard. One singular instance of hate speech doesn't necessarily cause significant harm to people... but there comes a point where minority stress definitely kicks in, and where prejudice, discrimination, and worse are socially acceptable. You might not be able to point at a single act of hate speech which tips the scales from "bad thing we tolerate because the upsides outweigh the downsides" to "social problems now exist and something needs to be done about them," but that doesn't mean the underlying causes of those social problems shouldn't be treated.
This seems to speak out against hate speech laws. Is that your position? (I'm asking because I'm genuinely not sure).
Hundreds of people call for the destruction fo the US across the world on a daily basis. Assassination time doesn't happen until the person starts (successfully) taking steps to try and implement it.
I'll not argue that they haven't been ignored in the past (McCarthyism), but are there any current examples of this?
If that's the case, then why are Germany and Canada's laws specifically in contradiction to your claim?
That would be because the Constitution would be preventing the United States federal government form using such tactics and technology against Americans. The Constitution has a specific area dealing with treasonous actions, not words (though President Obama and Congress have been psuing to ignore that for a while).
Also as was pointed out, speaking it doesn't mean that we are going to kill you. When you decide to sit in your basement in the middle of Jihadiville and start making bombs, then we do something because now you're acting on that.
I believe I pointed out that when it comes right down to it, the Supreme Court has said that laws curbing or attempting to limit free speech have consistently been struck down as unConstitutional.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
Considering you said the following...
And as I said, there were a lot of people - myself included - who said this was wrong. And you know what? People like myself and Oath Keepers (who are very public on their outrage towards this as well as other infringements) are deemed "possible right-wing extremists" by the federal government; namely, this administration.
Another topic, and honestly you are just doing this.
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
So what gives those so called Authorities the right to be the authority then?
~~~~~~~~~
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:
Not sure if your specific example is true, but more generally yeah. Majority groups and dominant groups will tend to be harsher on minorities then on themselves. Human bias, unfortunately.
I don't want to derail the thread, but I don't exactly understand the "assassination" schtick, in light of the fact that surely American citizens defected to Nazi Germany and we don't lose sleep over the fact that they died on the battlefield? Or is there a detail I'm missing?
And when it comes to Oathkeepers, I don't think that's specifically the reason for the label, more that they're well-armed and at least halfway convinced that the Federal government will turn American cities into "giant concentration camps." That is, it's a bit conspiratorial. However, I don't think the label of extremism extends to censorship. After all, you can go to even more extreme sources like Stormfront or (on the left) the ALF or even weirder fringe groups. We just don't want to be surprised if someone takes the message too far and wants to blow up, say, a federal building. *cough*
But there's a good point hiding under there:
@Teia, suppose (magically) every government in the world declared that from then on, all non-government citizens would be considered slaves of the State, and that all previous rights would be abolished. Would that be okay?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
I think that would be whatever -ocracy or -archy the country was ruled by. If the government doesn't grant rights that the population wants, they either show there voice through votes, violence or protest.
So here's a question: what happens if a government decides to take away rights that some people may disagree with (in this case, let's say the right to speak freely - truly freely). What happens, then, if the people rise up against the government because they feel that that is a right they should have? Should the government, then, decide that the "hate speech" laws should be repealed to stop the violence?
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
If it were just a fringe group then why would the government cave? The general populace still generally supports it and you can't have a government that just caves to terrorists/violent fringe groups.
The idiot Nazi is demonstrating and selling hate music on itunes, the Arab Islamofascist is plotting to blow up people with an underwear bomb with an African dying "for the cause." That's globalization for you.
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.
That doesn't answer the question though. That is merely making a statement of ownership of the masses by the whatever "...cracy" you wish to blame. I asked for an answer, and I know none of you will probably ever be able to answer it correctly. I already know the answer to it, but I want to see if any of you can figure it out. I'll give you guys a hint, Spooner wrote about this very topic.
~~~~~~~~~
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:
The people do.
That is inherently incorrect. The correct answer is..............
You can not by mere circumstances of birth in a specific geographical region, give your rights to another person. When you are born you are incapable of giving rights to anyone, because you are incapable of fully understanding how to do so, or to actually do it. You never signed a contract, and by mere acknowledgment of the State, you do not give acquiescence to the power of the state. The only way that the State, or those Authorities that use the State have power is by stealing it from the people within the lines drawn on the geographic region they lay claim to. There is no such thing as the Social Contract, it's a BS lie that they tell you to keep you believing that they have the power. It is only through daily belief that they have the power that you give them by not acknowledging your rights as an Individual. In reality, it's only your imagination that creates the illusion that makes it true. Once you can get past that point, their grasp on power becomes clear to what it really is. The threat of Force and the use of open Coercion. At the very core, it is slavery.
Plato talked about the Noble Lie, which is where the Social Contract idea came from. Lysander Spooner wrote about all of this in the 1800's, and his work actually lead to the core of the Abolition movement.
~~~~~~~~~
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:
I'm not sure where you are getting your definition of Moral Relativism from, but it's inaccurate. Moral Relativism is saying that you can not say your Morality is the same as a guy in Japan because of cultural norms. Which honestly is nothing more than a form of Divine Morality rather than Ethical Morality.
What I am discussing here is independent of Morality. It's based upon Negative and Positive Rights, which were formulated from Natural Law.
~~~~~~~~~
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:
I'm headed out to play some Modern, but I will get back to this question and give you an answer tonight. It's not as simple as equate=ing it to Morality, which is why I will answer it more fully later.
~~~~~~~~~
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:
I do not believe in an Objective morality. I believe morality is just a construct of human opinions on behavior writ large. I believe Morality is subjective, just like Freedom, Justice, Oppression, and almost every other concept of human control.
However, just because someone doesn't believe in a "Lawgiver" or god, or some other supreme moral authority, does NOT mean they have to be all wishy-washy.
I am a moral subjectivist. However, I believe that the rights and freedoms we granted to ourselves through declaration and bought with blood and sacrifice are the BEST around.
Freedom of Speech, religion, fair trials, secure persons and property against unlawful searches and seizures, equality for all races, genders, and creeds...etc.
America is not implementing these rights perfectly, and because of human nature, we may never. Just look at the Patriot Act, or NDAA, or bans on gay marriage. We still have a long way to go.
However - we are 10000 times better than Syria, or Iran, or some other ****ed up sharia law places.
I may not believe in an Objective morality, but I do believe some moral systems are better than others. I also believe that the better moral systems have a responsibility to erradicate those crappy systems out there like Sharia Law.
I don't see how it can be any other way.
If you TRULY believe that the way someone behaves or the way they treat others is WRONG - then you have to do something about it. Objective, or not.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
I do believe that many freedoms of the western world would be better choices for all nations, but no matter how strongly I believe this, it doesn't change the fact that each person there may believe differently. This is the nature of democracy; find what the most people within a society feel is right/wrong and make a social/legal code based on this.
For something like slavery, with my upbringing and location, it is very unlikely that I would think it a moral good for others to be enslaved. Go back a few centuries and you would be lying to yourself to say it wouldn't be highly likely to feel the opposite. When the idea of inalienable rights came about, it seems people took them to be inalienable -- if you were a straight, white and male.
It's also the same lie that keeps people from being egoistic *******s to each other, really. Hopefully there will come a day of explicit social contracts, but we have to stick with implicit ones because what's the alternative?
True, but if we agree on a certain standard of truth-finding (namely, skeptical reasoning and evidence) then slavery is wrong always and everywhere. Same with bigotry, totalitarian rule, and all the other abject failures in history.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
From a Canadian perspective, an equally valid question would be, "Why shouldn't there be?" Just because there are no inalienable rights doesn't mean that no consensus can be reached about which rights should be granted. It just means that such rights are decided on other grounds.
And if any of the rights granted to me by the government are violated, then I can quite accurately say my rights have been violated. If someone violates something I think should be a right but isn't, then I construct my argument against it on other grounds.
If a government sets up a legal system along a specific framework, such as undue harm being wrong (and as such laws against assault, battery, murder, larceny, fraud, etc), then there are underlying tenants to those laws.
Psychological harm is a very real thing. Minority stress is a related and equally real concept. And of course there's a reason why assault and harassment are crimes even when they don't actually lead to anything physical.
It is when considering whether or not to grant that right.
Why would there be?
This is more about nitpicking inconsequential details in the metaphor than actually arguing against it. If instead of someone's windshield, we have someone pelted with ping pong ball sized hailstones until they die, how do we determine which ones actually hit the person and which ones didn't? At any rate, the person's just as dead even if we punish the individual hailstones that struck them—it would be more prudent to take a preventative approach and thus keep the storm from brewing to begin with.
Just because I don't believe in objective morality doesn't mean I can't make subjective calls.
Justice Frank Murphy, in writing the decision of Chaplinsky vs. New Hampshire (which established the fighting words doctrine), wrote, "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."
So it seems to me that they don't see limiting free speech to be a problem when there's good reason to do so.
Human consensus.
"Okay" in any kind of objective sense is a meaningless concept. As far as it being "okay" in a subjective sense, I'm not sure how many people you could find who'd agree it would be.
Please remember to properly quote the entire section if you're not going to use an ellipses. The full quote is as such:
Those words that are uttered with what is an intent to cause a breach of the peace - namely, incite disorderly conduct - are outside the First Amendment's protection. If I were to say, "I think all **** should burn in Hell because they're an abomination in God's eyes," then when I have said - while morally reprehensible - is still protected free speech under the law. I provide a statement (opinion) and provide a reason for my views. If you decided you didn't like it and took a swing, then you'd be the one at fault under the law (though doubtful it'd be a conviction). With that being said, I would also provide the following:
I would argue that Snyder v. Phelps turns Chaplinsky on it's head, but that's an argument for another day. What's important is that the Supreme Court upheld the rights of someone (or a group) to protest with even the most morally-reprehensible utterances, and that they were protected under the First Amendment. And let's be clear here: I consider Fred Phelps nothing short of an ignorant piece of crap who will probably enjoy his spat in Hell, being anally violated by Satan et al. as punishment for what he preaches. But I support the Court's decision in this matter, even if I don't agree with it on a moral level.
Here's what it comes down to: is what the ignorant say acceptable? Partially yes, partially no. Depending on the nation you live in, you will probably take one side very vehemently. The United States is founded on a code, and that code says that while we may disagree with what you say, you still have that right. There are very few exceptions to this. Chaplinsky is a great showing of this concept. Speech that is designed specifically to cause a disturbance or would reasonably result in a physical altercation is verboten. It is not protected.
But let me ask you this: if the world decided to do this, then what? Hate speech is no longer tolerated. So people decide, "Well, you know what? I can't speak it? Time to put my words into actions!" Then all of a sudden, you have killings of people they don't like. Would you prefer the bigots be public about it so we can ostracize them properly, or would you rather we knew nothing about them until suddenly we have a bunch of black children strung up in a tree?
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
How can a moral subjectivist argue for a moral imperative?
A government is an institution created by a society to protect it; it is not the job of the people to argue why laws shouldn't be in place, it is the job of the government, and it's supporters, to argue why they should. "Why shouldn't there be," is not, has not, and will never be a valid argument. It's a hand wave.
But others, most notably BS, have told you this, and you refuse to acknowledge it. Look it up. They aren't the only ones who know this is improper argument.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
It is actually VERY easy.
goes something like
"I believe this is morally wrong/right, therefore it is imperative based on my morals to do something."
An "Objective Morality" is not necessary in order to act upon moral codes. We do it everyday and all the time. There is NO proof or evidence for objective morality, yet WE act based upon the moral beliefs we hold.
Believing we have the best set of morals, and acting upon that belief, does not make our set of morals objective anymore than the next guys.
Just look at the conflict between western culture and middle-eastern Islamic culture.
But believing morality is subjective does NOT mean we have to sit with our hands tied and say "oh well, let those people do whatever they want, after all, they have their own morals"
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein