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

How does one prove God does not exist?

The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from your perspective that God exists.
Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?
For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is on you to convert your assumption to fact first [i.e. prove God exists] else your question is merely ‘assumptive’ and useless.

Another counter to
“How does one prove God does not exist?”
is that the idea of God is a non-starter, moot.

Note my thread,
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&hilit=god+impossibility

Following your logic, what if one asked the following question:

  1. Do mind-independent objects and events which brains purportedly represent in the form of conscious experience of perceptual copies of these mind-independent objects and events exist?

The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from the perspective of someone believing that there are mind-independent objects and events exists.
For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is upon anyone believing in the existence of mind-independent objects and events to convert one’s assumption to fact first [i.e. prove mind-independent objects and events exist] else belief in mind-independent objects and events is assumptive and useless.

One can substitute ‘mind-independent objects and events’ with ‘other people’s consciousnesses’.

The existence of mind-independent objects and events and other people’s consciousness are ultimately a matter of faith, as there is no proof these exist. They’re in the same boat as God.

It may be in his case, but it is a question asked by agnostics and even atheists who do not presume to know.

Asking you to demonstrate the truth of your assumption is not a request or demand for you to accept another position. It is precisely what it is: a request for you to defend your assertion.

The onus, in pretty much any intellectual culture, is for anyone making an assertion to support that assertion if it is questioned.

Precisely the answers I wish I had given. Danke.

The point here is most are not aware the assumption is implied. This is why I am highlight this hidden fact.

Definition of Assumption;
An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without proof.
vocabulary.com/dictionary/assumption

Point is why should I defend myself based on another’s assumption which is unproven and illusory.
If I assume you kill X and demand you prove you did not kill X, there is no obligation on your part to prove you did not kill X. Whatever I assumed, the onus is on me to prove without doubts you had killed X.

Many theists commit a range of evils and violence [ kill and commit genocide] in accordance to the commands and in the name of their God. Surely these theists has an onus to prove their God exists as real to support their acts? It is evil to throw the onus of proof to the non-theists so they can get away and continue with murders and other evils.

Agree.

The consciousness of other people and the existence of mind-independent objects purportedly represented by the brain in and translated into the objects and environments appearing to sensory perception are also ‘unproven and illusory’, given that the only existence that appears is the conscious experience of a single person. Yet most believe in the existence of other people’s consciousness and mind-independent objects in the external world. Given that the only existence that shows itself is experience in the form of the subjective experience of a particular person, the existence of everything other than a person’s own consciousness is a matter of faith, with any possibility or probability of their existence being merely the level of a person’s belief in the existence of something outside a person’s consciousness.

God is in the same boat as other people’s consciousness and mind-independent, external world objects. One must have faith in his existence. For those asserting that he does not exist, one can argue that this is a prejudice based on the fact that, though God is in the same boat as other people’s consciousness and mind-independent objects, the one making the assertion has a particular strong disbelief in the existence of God, and at the same time, believes in the existence of the former. Everything is ultimately about belief, disbelief, and the various strengths of belief and disbelief leading to estimations of the “likelihood” or “probability” of the existence of something that is not the consciousness of a person.

Some theists commit evil and violence in the name of God. Others are kind, empathetic people that wouldn’t harm a fly and are better persons because of their belief. Again, proving God exists is as simple as proving other people’s consciousness exist or that mind-independent external world objects exist.

Again, once you make an assertion, you get an onus.

Again, because you made an assertion.

If Joe asserts there is a God, in a philosophy forum, in an academic setting, etc. someone noticing this can ask for justification and expect a response. If Jim asserts there is no God, the same onus arises there.

Did you not read that agnostics and even other atheists may expect justiication for your statement in a philosophical discussion setting? The evil of theists HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. We were talking about an ontological issue. With attendant epistemological issues. What evil acts has philosophical graffitte committed?

Agree.
[/quote]
Except you clearly did not, and continued to disagree in the rest of your post above.

You are conflating too many points here.

Note,

  1. Human beings are objective empirical entities like other mind-independent objects.
  2. Human beings know other humans also has similar mind like their own.
  3. God is Ultimately a non-empirical being
  4. Do non-empirical beings has mind?

1. Human beings are objective empirical entities like other mind-independent objects.
The existence of human beings is easy prove via empirical testings.

2. Human beings know other humans also has similar mind like their own.
There are epistemological issues re existence Other Minds.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
Despite the contentions, I believe the supporting arguments for the existence of other minds
are more convincing than the skeptics’ view.

However, there are loads of research from the psychology and other philosophical perspective to support the existence and knowledge of minds/consciousness other than one’s own. Note

It is not exactly easy, but it is not impossible to prove and convince the existence of other minds as above.

3. God is Ultimately a non-empirical being.
I have argued God is ultimately and has to be a non-empirical being, i.e. an ontological God. There is no way a non-empirical ontological God can be proven with empirical methods.

If anyone claims their God is an empirical being then bring proofs to show God is an empirical being like a human being or any other mind-independent objects?

4. Do non-empirical beings has mind?
There are no evidence a non-empirical objects has a ‘mind’ like a human mind or even those of animals.
Therefore God as non-empirical cannot have a mind like a human mind.

Against the above points, there is no way you can prove God exists.

My onus is I have exposed the implication of an assumption is his assertion.

Note the sequence,

  1. Joe assert there is a God.
  2. Then only can Jim asserts there is no God.

In the above case Joe’s assertion takes priority and thus Joe has the onus to provide proofs for his claim. There is no priority and onus on Jim to prove his claim in this particular issue.

However I agree if Jim decide to take the initiative to kill off Joe’s claim, then Jim has the onus to prove his case.
Note in my case, I have provided arguments why God is an impossibility and the idea of God emerged by some psychological defects within the human psyche.

Note the focus should be on the primary claimant re God exists, not the secondary negating claim.

However, as an initiative and mentioned above;
Note in my case, I have provided arguments why God is an impossibility and the idea of God emerged by some psychological defects within the human psyche.

Greatest I Am,

What purpose, positive purpose, does hate serve? It is a very strong emotion which can get way out of hand and do a lot of destruction.

Can you give me an example of when and how hate is good. For instance, a scenario?

By taking a phrase like Freedom of Speech and equating it with a total lack of responsibility and consciousness toward whomever it addresses.

In other words, anything goes even if at some point it leads to the destruction of millions of Jews or African Americans or mentally ill or incapacitated children…et cetera. We just NEVER learn do we?

God is not only dead but never existed in the first place.

We cannot stop a volcano from erupting but we can put a muzzle on lack of consciousness and stupidity.
I am all for allowing the censorship of hate speech. Perhaps those who are not do not understand the necessity for self-discipline and clear thinking.

How would censorship lead to self-discipline? (wouldn’t it undercut the possibility to some degree?) Can one not express anger and think clearly?

Karpel Tunnel

This may not be a good example but think of the discipline of a time out that the parent gives the child for wrong and crazy behavior as a censorship. Do you not think that after enough of them, the child would come to some consciousness and self-discipline? Of course, it might also depend on the individual child.

Hate speech can be very contagious and before anyone knows what is happening, there is the mob, there is the unthinking Herd, there is the fanatic, there is the person just waiting for the excuse to kill someone or beat someone up. Hate speech can become so volatile. You hear some person on a tirade shouting ugly racist remarks about Jews and other anti-Semetics listening and become enraged. Suddenly someone spots a Jewish person and that person becomes physically attacked to an extreme degrees. It could be an adult or a child.

You can also think of the censorship of it as the water used to put a fire out before it causes damage.

Would that not depend on the individual? Is a mob or a racist capable of self-discipline and clear thinking?

Sure. Someone who is stable, pretty well balanced, is aware of their feelings and can be in control of them and who knows what is at stake and realizes that there can be a far better way to achieve something.

But seriously, can an actual hate speech express anger and clear thinking without becoming volatile? What could go wrong there, given the right (or wrong) moment? This is not a love speech, it is a hate speech. Humans are imperfect, faulty, our emotions more than rise to the moment also in the wrong way.

I think we need a definition of hate speech.

I don’t think a category based on an emotion is a good idea.

I don’t think the current climate regarding speech is a good one. All sorts of things are being called hate speech when they may or may not have some anger behind thevm but do not seem to me racist, anti-semitic, etc.

I don’t see censorship working very well.

My kid says something racist, we’d have a talk. I don’t want to train him not to share his thoughts with me.

I do realize that asking for a definition is an easy request. I will try not to just jump on it. But see if you can define it and I will present then examples of what get called hate speech. Perhaps we will have similar objections to how it is currently used.

I think these quotes tend towards limiting censorship.

I agree.

We present love and hate as opposites, often, but it seems to me they are often connected. Something I love is threatened, i may feel hate. Is it OK for Churchill to have hate in his speech against Hitler? MLK certainly focused on love, but in this last speech, the one before he was killed, you can hear the rage at what he was encountering. Of course hate can go wrong, but a loving speech can go wrong also. Telling us to love something that is damaging. A speech that glosses over. A speech where an ugly, hateful person presents themselves as loving to set up their opponent.

I think there is something wrong headed about focusing on emotion. And by the way, I think everyone should be nervous about that focus. Because once hou outlaw hatred in reaction, you make it easier for tyranny.

Because once those in power can damn y ou for reacting angrily to what they are doing, they are freer to do what they want.

The very term itself gives me chills.

Karpel Tunnel

I am aware that there may be at least a few. I am using the phrase hate speech to denote INTENTION, where the intent is to incite people to anger, rage, hatred AND to the point where the outcome and consequences of that speech could only result in the inevitable - destruction, murder, et cetera. Hitler and the Nazi’s’ false propaganda, white supremacist’s speech which could incite people to murder African Americans and hang slaves - back then, hate speech which turns every good Muslim into a terrorist. I think that you get the idea.

Why not? Hatred is built on emotion, is it not? Even if you would call hatred a mood, it is built on emotion and those kind of speeches are so capable of evolving into quite a conflagration.

I suppose that I can agree with you in part here BUT I think that it has to be quite obvious when a speech is anti-semetic or racist or against gay people, ad continuum.

I realize that like everything there are many gray areas.

Bring yourself back to the Nazi regime. Perhaps there could not have been a law on censorship then, but what if there had been and it had succeeded. Would all of those people murdered because of the Holocaust ~men, women and CHILDREN ~~would they have survived the war, barring the bombs, if they had not had all of the Lies, Hatred, out-of-control emotions thrown at them? Would children have been shot in the head by Naziis if censorship was the thing back then?!

That is a good thing. It is too easy a thing, I think, to be biased/prejudiced, to become infected by that so-called virus. It is all around us so just a simple thing like an accidental bump by someone, someone who we feel is not like us might offset us. Adults are not even sometimes consciously aware of when they are pushing the envelope so of course children would not be.

It is an easy request but not necessarily easy to answer.

I look forward to it. Let us not forget that hatred can be insidiously subtle.

[b]It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.

The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory but progress.[/b]

That was my signature long before I entered this thread. It was kind of a reminder to me to try to keep an open mind and that the questions are at least as important than the answers, sometimes more so? How much it is working is debatable. :mrgreen:

As to your response, at first glance, that may be possible. At second glance, I will have to think more on it.
I might suggest that the quote tells us to try to see both sides of that coin very carefully, both sides, just as carefully.
Censorship would have to be well thought out logically, yes, and with compassion - to do no harm or what does the least harm.

Hmmm…then again, at the end of the day, there would be that so-called HATE SPEECH (unless you could think of another word or phrase for it) which has as its main INTENTION the fight toward raising human consciousness against people like the white supremacists and neo-naziis, the terrorists, the despots, among others, in a constructive, not a destructive way, where lives are physically destroyed.

But then again, even that would not be so easy, right, since there are always those fanatics looking and waiting for an excuse to destroy. There are really no easy answers where human beings are involved. lol

In practical terms it is very hard to censor based on intention. If we talk about the consequences, then a lot of politicians speechs can and do lead to destruction, but they need not contain much in the way of hate or anger, however they set down reality or ‘reality’ in such a way that it leads to death and destruction. I don’t know what to look for with your definition.

I don’t mean that one cannot have a category based on emotions, one can. What I meant was it’s a bad idea in the context of human communication. 1) we have to determine intent, which is hard to do 2) strong anger (hatred) is a natural reaction to things like oppression. I wouldn’t want to say people cannot scream out their anger at a protest, for example, or in an angry letter signed by many about a policy. 3) You can create documents that are calm and reasoned or ‘reasoned’ that are based on hate and have horrible intentions, but which contain nothing which demonstrates hate or horrible intentions. And I am not sure that forcing everyone to be Machievellian about this helps.

So, it is hate only at minority groups? How do we determine if an attack on Israel’s policies is anti-semitic?

There was censorship, but it was run by the Nazis. The upside of the Nazis being as up front as they were - though they were also really quite cagey about what they intended and meant about a lot of things - is that it was clearer who they were and what they might do. The rest of the world did not react in time, but some people were convinced, like Churchill, I am sure in part based on what the Nazis were saying. It might have been harder to get people to prepare to fight the Nazis had they been ever cagier about who they were.

Sure, but my point was: that is not putting my child in time out. Time out might get my kid to be silent around me in the future, but it isn’t getting at the issues.

Hatred can be justified.