Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
French Patriot

Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Altai said:


You are an idiot.
 

I'm not beholden to religion and will never be. Sorry, but here in the West thinking for ourselves is generally seen as a positive trait. If you don't want to listen to the Western perspective, why would you join a site like this? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, turningrite said:

I'm not beholden to religion and will never be. Sorry, but here in the West thinking for ourselves is generally seen as a positive trait. If you don't want to listen to the Western perspective, why would you join a site like this? 


Sorry, I didnt inteded to insult you, I just wanted to see your reaction. So as you see, you start to target my person too by asking me why I join your site when I insult you. Because it harms you and you react it with the same manner. This is just a simple example for the harm of unlimited free speech to the community peace.  

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Altai said:


Sorry, I didnt inteded to insult you, I just wanted to see your reaction. So as you see, you start to target my person too by asking me why I join your site when I insult you. Because it harms you and you react it with the same manner. This is just a simple example for the harm of unlimited free speech to the community peace.  

While you clearly intended to insult me, I did nothing of the sort in responding to you. All I said is that I'm not beholden to (i.e. bound by) presumptive ideology (i.e. religion) and here in the West independent thought doesn't generally imply idiocy, as you appear to suggest to be the case. I'm not harmed. Your credibility in this debate, however, has been harmed by the nature of your response. There is no inherent harm in free speech. There are some limits on free speech in the West, particularly where such speech intends to incite violence or actual harm, but the state MUST demonstrate that clear harm (not offense) is intended where it asserts these limits. You've provided no argument, other perhaps than a weak emotional one, to substantiate your claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turningrite said:

While you clearly intended to insult me, I did nothing of the sort in responding to you. All I said is that I'm not beholden to (i.e. bound by) presumptive ideology (i.e. religion) and here in the West independent thought doesn't generally imply idiocy, as you appear to suggest to be the case. I'm not harmed. Your credibility in this debate, however, has been harmed by the nature of your response. There is no inherent harm in free speech. There are some limits on free speech in the West, particularly where such speech intends to incite violence or actual harm, but the state MUST demonstrate that clear harm (not offense) is intended where it asserts these limits. You've provided no argument, other perhaps than a weak emotional one, to substantiate your claim.


Look you are proving my point further. You dont even believe in me that I didnt intended to insult you but I was just trying to show you how it will affect our communication, because hate speech is harmful and any negative speech which is not proven is hate speech. 

Please stop rejecting science when it does not fit with your interests. You should have heard about suggestion method which is often used by intelligence services and media. Because talks affect you and you dont have right to affect people in negative manner just because of you want to talk. You rights end up when it starts to harm others.

Edited by Altai

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Altai said:


Look you are proving my point further. You dont even believe in me that I didnt intended to insult you but I was just trying to show you how it will affect our communication, because hate speech is harmful and any negative speech which is not proven is hate speech. 

Please stop rejecting science when it does not fit with your interests. You should have heard about suggestion method which is often used by intelligence services and media. Because talks affect you and you dont have right to affect people in negative manner just because of you want to talk. You rights end up when it starts to harm others.

"you rights end up when it starts to harm others."

Who defines what harms others? The people it harms? Corporations? or Government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Anthony said:

"you rights end up when it starts to harm others."

Who defines what harms others? The people it harms? Corporations? or Government?

Logic based on the same information does not var from person to person. It is the same for everyone. Any negative speech will harm others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Altai said:

Logic based on the same information does not var from person to person. It is the same for everyone. Any negative speech will harm others. 

Logic based on what same information? What are you referencing? 

My question does not change, who determines what is  "negative speech"?   If one were to question the reason for the existence of a certain ideology would that be negative speech? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

16 minutes ago, Anthony said:

Logic based on what same information? What are you referencing? 

My question does not change, who determines what is  "negative speech"?   If one were to question the reason for the existence of a certain ideology would that be negative speech? 

 

Logic determines the negative speech.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Altai said:

 

Logic determines the negative speech.

Too funny! Your previous posts indicate that you're not interested in logic. Religion, for instance is the opposite of logic. In my opinion, negative speech is telling others what they can't say so you can maintain power and control. The kind of system you seem to prefer would amount to a dystopia in the minds of many in the West. Were you to watch the award winning TV series, The Handmaid's Tale, maybe you'd understand the distinctions being made here.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Altai said:


Please stop rejecting science when it does not fit with your interests. .

Too funny! The Enlightenment, one of the foundational bases of Western culture, promoted science and rationalism in response to their opposites, superstition, custom, hierarchy and religion. The movement was premised on the notion that we can and should abandon all preconceptions and question everything, however uncomfortable that process might be for some. You should read Voltaire, and particularly his views on religion. Then you'd begin to understand the Western mindset. I worked with a woman a couple decades ago who fled revolutionary Iran for Canada. She said he had never known what actual freedom was until she moved to the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Altai said:

 

Logic determines the negative speech.

Great, give me an example where logic determines negative speech?

Since universal logic is not based on emotions or feelings, any and all speech could be construed as positive speech for the purpose of logical progression both in an individual level and on a collective level. 

36 minutes ago, turningrite said:

In my opinion, negative speech is telling others what they can't say so you can maintain power.

Wait what you mean it is just about maintaining power? no that cant be;) (I agree)

Edited by Anthony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Altai said:


 You rights end up when it starts to harm others.

 

You must mean, "your right ends when it steps on the rights of others?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Anthony said:

Great, give me an example where logic determines negative speech?

You can find millions of examples yourself. As I said logic based on the same info does not vary from person to person, its the same for everyone.

For examle saying "Vote for Tredeau and put a cross on other candidates on your ballot". It will make your choice invalid when you mark more than one person or party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Altai said:

You can find millions of examples yourself. As I said logic based on the same info does not vary from person to person, its the same for everyone.

For examle saying "Vote for Tredeau and put a cross on other candidates on your ballot". It will make your choice invalid when you mark more than one person or party. 

Well I am not the one who is trying to support the claim " logic based" negative speech protocol, it is up to you to do the work and find us some example of what you would like to propose for a control measure.  When does something become negative speech in this " logic based negative speech" what are the logical steps one would follow?

Quote

For examle saying "Vote for Tredeau and put a cross on other candidates on your ballot". It will make your choice invalid when you mark more than one person or party.

Okay so this would be an example of something that would be illegal to say or censored from speech Altai?

What if someone were to question an ideology or a belief or a emotional felling, since critical thinking, science and philosophy tend to intact such actions. Could this be construed as Negative speech?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Anthony said:

Okay so this would be an example of something that would be illegal to say or censored from speech Altai?

Yes, it only would be allowed if the speaker also says that it will make the voting invalid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Altai said:

Yes, it only would be allowed if the speaker also says that it will make the voting invalid.

By this token it more seems that your are implying any misleading comments should be censored, not comments that hurt others on a physical or emotional level, so for a hypothetical example someone saying:   " hurt all blue eyed people"   would be allowed  in your system, since it is not a misleading statement.

or

Hypothetically if someone says   " I have evidence to believe brown eyed individuals are not human, and should not be treated as human"   is this considered allowed speech according to your logic based analysis?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Anthony said:

By this token it more seems that your are implying any misleading comments should be censored, not comments that hurt others on a physical or emotional level, so for a hypothetical example someone saying:   " hurt all blue eyed people"   would be allowed  in your system, since it is not a misleading statement.

or

Hypothetically if someone says   " I have evidence to believe brown eyed individuals are not human, and should not be treated as human"   is this considered allowed speech according to your logic based analysis?

I think my posts are pretty clear. Read them again instead of asking similar things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Altai said:

I think my posts are pretty clear. Read them again instead of asking similar things. 

From this response it seems to me that you have no intentions of explaining your proposed system, other than generalized statements which lack in depth exploration. I evolved my questions to match your idea, since your have changed your ideas structure, you have not answered any of my examples to support your idea, I will revert to turningrite statement 

On 6/21/2018 at 8:34 PM, turningrite said:

why would you join a site like this? 

If you have no intention of having a discussion or elaboration on your or others ideas what is the point in all this?

If this is true, we are just wasting time making others feel good by thinking they have "contributed" to society, yet they do not want to hear about discussion of their own idea. One can live in a bubble, but do not expect to live in a bubble on a political discussion forum.  This idea of "agree with me or don't post your comment" is not going to progress anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Altai said:

I think my posts are pretty clear. Read them again instead of asking similar things. 

Is this a joke? Your own expectations are arrogant and disrespectful when you can't read beyond a 'tweet'. You know...those 'long' posts you find so troublesome to invest in? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2018 at 11:46 AM, Anthony said:

If this is true, we are just wasting time making others feel good by thinking they have "contributed" to society, yet they do not want to hear about discussion of their own idea. One can live in a bubble, but do not expect to live in a bubble on a political discussion forum.  This idea of "agree with me or don't post your comment" is not going to progress anyone.

I'm not sure what you mean by referencing this comment to a decontextualized sentence fragment ("why would you join a site like this?)? The full sentence from which it's extracted reads as follows: " If you don't want to listen to the Western perspective, why would you join a site like this?" The member had expressed in a series of comments his/her objection to the Western view of free speech without, in my opinion, providing a philosophically consistent context within which another system might be superior and then resorted to outright insult ("You are an idiot.") rather than engage in further debate. Why would somebody join a site like this merely to insult other members with whom they disagree rather than to engage in fair debate? I think it a fair question.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, turningrite said:

1) without, in my opinion, providing a philosophically consistent context within which another system might be superior 

2) I think it a fair question.   

1) Or - at a broader level - how it compares without evaluating which is superior or not

2) Of course it is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turningrite said:

I'm not sure what you mean by referencing this comment to a decontextualized sentence fragment ("why would you join a site like this?)? The full sentence from which it's extracted reads as follows: " If you don't want to listen to the Western perspective, why would you join a site like this?" The member had expressed in a series of comments his/her objection to the Western view of free speech without, in my opinion, providing a philosophically consistent context within which another system might be superior and then resorted to outright insult ("You are an idiot.") rather than engage in further debate. Why would somebody join a site like this merely to insult other members with whom they disagree rather than to engage in fair debate? I think it a fair question

I apologize if you felt I decontextualized your sentence, I was merely remarking upon the same premise of "if you do not want to listen to others perspectives why join a site like this?".

I agree, your question is valid and fair. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 7:10 AM, Altai said:


Probably most of the people who lose a case thinks that they were right, just the law cheated them. There are many murderers, thieves, terrorists thinks that they were right. Anyone has an excuse for their actions. 

Mostly true, but that does not apply to my case as the intent was to get before the courts.

Regards

DL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...