Forum Philosophy Update

Here-here, I’ll drink to that. :wink:

If we’re still around, a decade or two from now, will look back on the early 21st century as the long lost golden age of internet freedom, thanks in part to venues like ILP.

That’s a good point.

Really? I wasn’t aware of that. Some are dying from lack of participation. I get a lot of email from admins just-about begging for someone to come participate in their garden, motorbike, whatever forums. I’m not sure if Twitter or mobile devices killed them.

Free speech includes hate speech.

100 Chicago Professors “Propose To Exclude Viewpoints They Find Objectionable”

I know of a couple small places and probably it’s only because they are small that it is so. As soon as the herd thunders in, they trample on everyone’s rights.

What’s to talk about in an echochamber? I need someone to disagree with me or I wouldn’t know what I think. How would I know I advocated for free speech unless someone else didn’t? We need enemies.

Where are the Nazis? :laughing:

If Hillary had been elected, none of this would be happening. Not that Trump has done anything, but people are reacting to fear itself.

If Hilary had been elected we would have ground troops in Syria and God knows what tensions with Russia. I have little doubt she would have continued the harshest treatment of whistleblowers - he was worse than Bush - since we are talking about free speech.

I don’t know about wars and I can’t base anything on evidence, but it sure feels like if Hillary would have won it would have been status quo and no one would have thought twice about a jew-hating youtube video. The sentiment at the time was “Oh that’s just stupid; who cares” and now it’s “OMG hate speech!”

zerohedge.com/news/2018-01- … nvironment

Is there anyone here who supports to restriction of speech? If not, is there anyone who can play devil’s advocate to argue their position? I’m curious if there is any merit and why anyone would hold such a view.

In Europe it’s against the law to challenge the holocaust and one can serve years in prison over it. I think the reason is that it disrespects the victims by making them liars, like telling Buzz Aldrin he didn’t walk on the moon and getting punched for it:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlbYOKSSaIE[/youtube]

(Now that I watched the video, the fact that he didn’t pacify the guy by swearing on his bible is a bit suspicious. Is he afraid to swear on it? Would he have to swear on it in court? If he would swear on it in court, then wouldn’t it be easier to swear on it to make the guy leave rather than making such protest followed by slugging the guy? Opinions on that would be cool.)

So should we make a law that prohibits folks from making conspiracies about the moonwalking? Why not? Why allow disrespect of the astronauts who risked life and limb?

Heck, why stop there. It’s a slippery slope, right? We can slide on down to the crime of hurting people’s feelings. “You called me a name so you can go to jail!”

Why not outlaw climate denial? After all, our earth is at stake, right? “Life in prison for advocating the destruction of earth!”

Where does it end and who gets to decide?

Why must truth be guarded so rabidly?

Freedom of speech is the only mechanism for establishing truth, so censoring speech for the sake of truth is therefore the undermining of its very own underpinning and it the philosophical equivalent of sawing off the limb you’re sitting on. It’s madness!

“Beware when fighting monsters that you don’t become a monster.” As soon as we embark on a crusade of righteousness we’ve become monsters: armed clergy.

I am saying that it’s hard to discern. I didn’t think that Mr. R’s suggestion to “fall off a ladder” was insulting. And after rereading it I still don’t. I’m surprised that you take it as an insult.
My opinion is probably the result of having fallen off a ladder and permanently damaging my body. Any more similar falls off ladders could leave me paralyzed. So although gravity doesn’t increase consequences, damage does accumulate as he suggested.

He should not have said that you were being tacky.

So the pub owner gets added obligations but the patrons have no added obligations even if the owner has a clearly expressed policy on use of the webcam and the patrons have agreed to the policy. Is that your position?

So if I’m a Jew and I invite the public to my house for some roasted lamb and then someone starts yelling anti-Semitic, anti-meat, or just personal insults, then I can’t tell him to stop and I can’t tell him to leave??
( Maybe “throw the filthy Jews in the oven” stuff :wink: )
That’s the correct ethics?

The owner can unplug the webcam if a patron is saying something that goes against the owners policy? Now I’m really confused because in the last example you seemed to be saying that the homeowner has to allow his “equipment” to be used. And you also seem to be arguing that with respect to media companies in general.

I don’t know the details of what the policy was or why it changed. But if it was copyrighted material, then they can ask that it not be broadcast.

Well, he has made threads in the past where he said that theists are mentally ill and delusional. But at least he wrote some arguments in those threads.

The Religion and Spirituality forum is described as "For intuitive and critical discussions, from spirituality to theological doctrines. Fair warning: because the subject matter is personal, moderation is strict. "

In fact, the moderation is not strict. It has become a forum for bashing theists.

I have tried to keep the discussions at least a bit philosophical. But I’m tired of it.

That he presents no new information, no argument and that his post is one insult. And he has a choice of either posting relevant content or getting banned.

I can’t picture a forum situation where shaming would be a positive.

I don’t think that’s true. As long as there are enough “nice” people around then they “crowd out” the “nasty” people. The “nice” people go quiet or leave when a certain threshold of “nastiness” is exceeded.
Policing helps keep the “nastiness” in check by presenting real consequences to the “nasty” people for their behavior and giving them motivation to change. It reduces the rate of growth of the “nasty” population.

Some guy calls Buzz a liar and Buzz is supposed to “do” something for the guy to show that he is not lying?

What if Buzz does swear on the bible and then the guy just says that Buzz lied while swearing on the bible?

Do you really think that the guy would say that he was “completely wrong about his allegations” and walk away “converted”?

I don’t think so.

Are you going to “intervene” in the “shooting” thread?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193836&start=100#p2693785

Yes.

Don’t let him off the hook. I want to see some serious shaming. :evilfun:

Pretty much, gold in the rough as they say.

I suspect however they’ll simply turn off all of the internet before then…

Look at all the white nationalist websites they simply turned off last year, they won’t just stop with that however as what will come next is any website promoting rebellion against the government or power structure. Mark my words for future reference please. White nationalism was a target of convenience for public outcry to move onto other venues in banning or censorship.

I also like differing opinions and beliefs as my beliefs wouldn’t become stronger if I didn’t have any opponent to debate. I take great pride in debating others striking them down in bouts of words.

Where are the nazis? If you don’t know by now I am the resident autocrat here and I make no apologies for being such. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump serve the same masters, choice within democracy is always a false dichotomy.

Yet a hot war is surfacing in Syria under Trump, nothing was implemented differently at all.

I support the restriction of speech under my chosen political ideology however under the dictatorship I promote I would have no problem with holocaust revisionism or skepticism publicly in that my beliefs are definitely not kosher. I would publicly state my beliefs on the holocaust or World War II here on the forum but I won’t for such politically incorrect beliefs of mine pertaining the subject would get me permanently banned here very quickly. I’ll just leave it at that.

It’s in the context. If I had asked what it feels like to fall off a ladder, then the suggestion wouldn’t be insulting. But I simply said that nature doesn’t increase punishment and he recommended I fall off the ladder more often in order to discover that nature does increase the punishment and that my expression of ignorance was tacky. But what was tacky is what he metaphorically stepped in by calling me tacky because the punishment does not increase and nature doesn’t seek to punish.

And, conceding that maybe people don’t change, he continues to find tacky things to step in here viewtopic.php?f=6&t=193768#p2690982

People who throw insults at one another are, for the lack of a better word, kind of lowly and pitiful.

So he’s insulting people who insult and has consequently defined himself by his own conclusion. I suppose I have to tread lightly lest I insult him, but then again, I’m human and subject to mistakes and won’t contaminate myself with purity.

Umm… I guess so. I thought I stated my position verbosely. The pub owner doesn’t have the right to take away the right to freedom of speech of the public. That is independent of any obligations the pub owner may or may not realize. That is my position.

Depends what you mean by “invite the public to my house”. Is the invitation open to everyone on earth? Or do you mean just some friends? If it’s open to everyone, then no. If the invitation is limited, then yes. You make the decision to make your house public and once you do that, you can’t control what information the public has access to. If someone starts yelling comments, then all you can do is say “Well, I invited everyone and this is what I get: everyone.”

No the owner doesn’t HAVE to allow usage of his equipment; it was just to state that “even if they use his equipment”. Who owns the equipment doesn’t matter. What matters is who is invited and who is the audience.

So Schiff has no rights to his own material simply because it was on a medium owned my someone else? If you discover the cure for cancer on my pc, then I can seize your work and claim credit? It should be the other way around… it was Schiff’s intellectual property that was stolen by CNBC.

Indeed I am missing a lot of history, but I hate to lose even one member. I think banning should be reserved for the absolute last measure when all-else has failed.

I wish I could help, but I can’t even keep up with my own posts. How do you know when someone is addressing you? Some boards have notifications up in the corner, but I have to randomly check to see if anyone is talking to me and I’m sure I miss even reading a lot of replies because I can’t remember all the places I’ve posted in order to check and see.

Reminds me of Stefan Molyneux’s “Not an argument!” lol! Why the haste to ban people? I’d like to ask Stefan the same question because he said:

Start at 58:30

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFRqIhzjxBg[/youtube]

When you take away external coercion, what you get is not chaos, but spontaneous self-organization.

He used the “school with no rules” as an example sbs.com.au/news/the-school-with-no-rules

So I went to his forum and found more rules than I’ve ever seen and I’ve read on other forums how ban-happy he is. He can preach, but can’t take his own medicine.

Why not?

I guess so, but it also creates echochambers just like the nasty people do when left alone. Policing is artificial selection vs not-policing which is natural selection. Either way, survival is determined by selection. I’m guessing you’re a theist since you’re teleological in asserting that control and guidance from ruler is necessary?

I don’t know, but I probably would have said “Ok look, I realize you having some difficulty in believing I walked on the moon, so if it will help, I’ll swear on the bible for you. Happy now? No? Then I’m out of ideas to help you, now please leave me alone until you can think of something that I can demonstrate for you.” Why would I not say that? The only thing I can imagine is that if I believed in god, I would not want to swear on a lie.

What did I miss? Dang it.

Yes, I agree with you.

Yup, except not sure it’s healthy to feel pride in defeating someone. It should be more like helping someone who has fallen down to stand up.

No I wasn’t aware, but nice to meet you and glad you’re here to represent your beliefs.

Yeah, with some differences. Don supports guns and is tougher on immigration, but is in bed with the jewish banksters.

Yes, but then again, is democracy so attractive? Would you put a prospective operation or medical treatment up to a popular vote? It’s always bugged me that people who have no idea about economics are voting on economical issues. Abortion? Ok I suppose that’s subjective enough to put to a vote, but minimum wages? Most people aren’t qualified to have an opinion.