Philosophy Now Forum

a) clear and present danger (nuclear bomb plans, etc.)
b) inherently problematic (fighting words, threats, libel, etc.)
c) abuse of moderation (too loud, too frequent, etc.)
d) ?

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:44 pm a) clear and present danger (nuclear bomb plans, etc.)
b) inherently problematic (fighting words, threats, libel, etc.)
c) abuse of moderation (too loud, too frequent, etc.)
d) ?

I think the suppression of speech question is closely related to the lying question; when is it permissible to lie. Free speech, like lying, is so valuable in so many situations that it is almost primary. However, there are situations where speech or true would bring on such negative consequences that suppression or lying is morally required.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:19 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:44 pm a) clear and present danger (nuclear bomb plans, etc.)
b) inherently problematic (fighting words, threats, libel, etc.)
c) abuse of moderation (too loud, too frequent, etc.)
d) ?

I think the suppression of speech question is closely related to the lying question; when is it permissible to lie. Free speech, like lying, is so valuable in so many situations that it is almost primary. However, there are situations where speech or true would bring on such negative consequences that suppression or lying is morally required.

Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone. Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm. Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise. Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:19 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:44 pm a) clear and present danger (nuclear bomb plans, etc.)
b) inherently problematic (fighting words, threats, libel, etc.)
c) abuse of moderation (too loud, too frequent, etc.)
d) ?

I think the suppression of speech question is closely related to the lying question; when is it permissible to lie. Free speech, like lying, is so valuable in so many situations that it is almost primary. However, there are situations where speech or true would bring on such negative consequences that suppression or lying is morally required.

Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone. Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm. Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise. Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.

Uh, no. There is a view in the current zeitgeist that if you say something that hurts my feelings, that you've committed violence against me equivalent to physical violence. I think we would probably both agree that this is BS.

However, there are situations where words can reasonably lead to physical violence. If the police are at your door asking if you have any Jewish people in your house, and you have two in the attic, I believe you suppress your freedom and speech and lie.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:19 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:44 pm a) clear and present danger (nuclear bomb plans, etc.)
b) inherently problematic (fighting words, threats, libel, etc.)
c) abuse of moderation (too loud, too frequent, etc.)
d) ?

I think the suppression of speech question is closely related to the lying question; when is it permissible to lie. Free speech, like lying, is so valuable in so many situations that it is almost primary. However, there are situations where speech or true would bring on such negative consequences that suppression or lying is morally required.

Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone. Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm. Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise. Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.

A threat need not be explicit to be a threat, and the vernacular is synonymous with danger, not requiring intent or positive acts.

politically correct speech is double plus good

-Imp

Advocate wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:37 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:19 am

I think the suppression of speech question is closely related to the lying question; when is it permissible to lie. Free speech, like lying, is so valuable in so many situations that it is almost primary. However, there are situations where speech or true would bring on such negative consequences that suppression or lying is morally required.

Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone. Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm. Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise. Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.

A threat need not be explicit to be a threat, and the vernacular is synonymous with danger, not requiring intent or positive acts.

Furthermore, just because you think it is a threat does not make it a threat. That is where "intent" comes in.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:19 am

I think the suppression of speech question is closely related to the lying question; when is it permissible to lie. Free speech, like lying, is so valuable in so many situations that it is almost primary. However, there are situations where speech or true would bring on such negative consequences that suppression or lying is morally required.

Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone. Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm. Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise. Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.

Uh, no. There is a view in the current zeitgeist that if you say something that hurts my feelings, that you've committed violence against me equivalent to physical violence. I think we would probably both agree that this is BS.

However, there are situations where words can reasonably lead to physical violence. If the police are at your door asking if you have any Jewish people in your house, and you have two in the attic, I believe you suppress your freedom and speech and lie.

Freedom of speech means you are free to say or write anything you choose and that you are not compelled to say or write anything you do not choose. Free speech is not a requirement to provide information to anyone else. Freedom of speech is total control over whatever one chooses to express or not express, don't you think? I don't mean such freedom actually exists anywhere, only that is what it would mean if it did.

Of course you are right about other's feelings, which no one is responsible for except the one who has them. How others react emotionally to what you or I say is their problem, though most of us are still careful not to intentionally offend others--it's our choice.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:02 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am
Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone. Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm. Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise. Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.

Uh, no. There is a view in the current zeitgeist that if you say something that hurts my feelings, that you've committed violence against me equivalent to physical violence. I think we would probably both agree that this is BS.

However, there are situations where words can reasonably lead to physical violence. If the police are at your door asking if you have any Jewish people in your house, and you have two in the attic, I believe you suppress your freedom and speech and lie.

Freedom of speech means you are free to say or write anything you choose and that you are not compelled to say or write anything you do not choose. Free speech is not a requirement to provide information to anyone else. Freedom of speech is total control over whatever one chooses to express or not express, don't you think? I don't mean such freedom actually exists anywhere, only that is what it would mean if it did.

Of course you are right about other's feelings, which no one is responsible for except the one who has them. How others react emotionally to what you or I say is their problem, though most of us are still careful not to intentionally offend others--it's our choice.

Freedom of speech is broadly misunderstood. There are two fundamental (and fundamentally different) issues at stake. The first sense of term means the right to express oneself, but equally important is the right of others to hear opinions different than their own. You cannot have a well-functioning society without a maximum degree of both.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:19 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:44 pm a) clear and present danger (nuclear bomb plans, etc.)
b) inherently problematic (fighting words, threats, libel, etc.)
c) abuse of moderation (too loud, too frequent, etc.)
d) ?

I think the suppression of speech question is closely related to the lying question; when is it permissible to lie. Free speech, like lying, is so valuable in so many situations that it is almost primary. However, there are situations where speech or true would bring on such negative consequences that suppression or lying is morally required.

Will you provide examples?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:19 am

Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 02, 2020 6:44 pm a) clear and present danger (nuclear bomb plans, etc.)
b) inherently problematic (fighting words, threats, libel, etc.)
c) abuse of moderation (too loud, too frequent, etc.)
d) ?

I think the suppression of speech question is closely related to the lying question; when is it permissible to lie. Free speech, like lying, is so valuable in so many situations that it is almost primary. However, there are situations where speech or true would bring on such negative consequences that suppression or lying is morally required.

Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone.

When you say "anyone" do you literally mean ANY one?

And, are you really 'trying to' suggest that when adult human beings talk to children human beings there is NO possibility ever that no matter what the adult human being says that this could NEVER harm a child, nor be a threat to the child, human being at all?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm.

Would you call 'creating confusion', through speech, 'causing harm'?

If no, then just maybe 'you' have been so 'non-harmed' by what you have been taught, and have learned, through speech, that you are still somewhat confused on what the actual Truth of Life IS.

Or, do you purport to NOT being confused at all?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm.

So, absolutely ANY one can say absolutely ANY thing to you, and this could NOT cause harm, NOR be a threat, of ANY sort, to you at all, correct?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise.

This is a different matter, so now we have two, correct?

To you, human beings are NOT compelled to do absolutely ANY thing in this Universe, by absolutely ANY thing at all, correct?

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.

Yes, we are AWARE of what you BELIEVE is true.

Some of us, however, just wait patiently to see if you can actually provide any actual EVIDENCE and/or PROOF for your CLAIM and BELIEF here.

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:19 am

I think the suppression of speech question is closely related to the lying question; when is it permissible to lie. Free speech, like lying, is so valuable in so many situations that it is almost primary. However, there are situations where speech or true would bring on such negative consequences that suppression or lying is morally required.

Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone. Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm. Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise. Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.

Uh, no. There is a view in the current zeitgeist that if you say something that hurts my feelings, that you've committed violence against me equivalent to physical violence. I think we would probably both agree that this is BS.

Well OBVIOUSLY this would be NOT TRUE.

Also, could you name just one human being who says that words only which, supposedly, "hurt feelings" (as though that is some actual thing) is equivalent to physical violence?

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm However, there are situations where words can reasonably lead to physical violence. If the police are at your door asking if you have any Jewish people in your house, and you have two in the attic, I believe you suppress your freedom and speech and lie.

But WHY 'lie'?

Obviously if some thing is NOT necessary, then it does NOT 'need' to be done.

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:02 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 1:29 am
Please explain how saying or writing anything can ever harm or be a threat to anyone. Only actions, overt and physical, can actually cause harm. Nothing compels anyone to do anything, not even speech they despise. Actions can cause harm, speech cannot, and any action to supress speech is harmful.

Uh, no. There is a view in the current zeitgeist that if you say something that hurts my feelings, that you've committed violence against me equivalent to physical violence. I think we would probably both agree that this is BS.

However, there are situations where words can reasonably lead to physical violence. If the police are at your door asking if you have any Jewish people in your house, and you have two in the attic, I believe you suppress your freedom and speech and lie.

Freedom of speech means you are free to say or write anything you choose and that you are not compelled to say or write anything you do not choose. Free speech is not a requirement to provide information to anyone else. Freedom of speech is total control over whatever one chooses to express or not express, don't you think? I don't mean such freedom actually exists anywhere, only that is what it would mean if it did.

Of course you are right about other's feelings, which no one is responsible for except the one who has them.

When you say "no one" is responsible for "other's" feelings do you literally mean 'NO one'?

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm How others react emotionally to what you or I say is their problem, though most of us are still careful not to intentionally offend others--it's our choice.

But WHY would you be " careful not to intentionally offend "others" ", especially when you are here suggesting that NO one is responsible for the internal feelings in ANY "other", and, you INSIST that ONLY non verbal 'physical actions' can actually cause harm?

If the latter part of this was actually true, then you could NEVER offend/harm "another" EVER with your words. So, WHY are most of you still careful not to intentionally offend "others"?

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:40 am

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:02 am

KLewchuk wrote: ↑Fri Sep 04, 2020 3:33 pm

Uh, no. There is a view in the current zeitgeist that if you say something that hurts my feelings, that you've committed violence against me equivalent to physical violence. I think we would probably both agree that this is BS.

However, there are situations where words can reasonably lead to physical violence. If the police are at your door asking if you have any Jewish people in your house, and you have two in the attic, I believe you suppress your freedom and speech and lie.

Freedom of speech means you are free to say or write anything you choose and that you are not compelled to say or write anything you do not choose. Free speech is not a requirement to provide information to anyone else. Freedom of speech is total control over whatever one chooses to express or not express, don't you think? I don't mean such freedom actually exists anywhere, only that is what it would mean if it did.

Of course you are right about other's feelings, which no one is responsible for except the one who has them. How others react emotionally to what you or I say is their problem, though most of us are still careful not to intentionally offend others--it's our choice.

Freedom of speech is broadly misunderstood.

But you understand it FULLY. Am I correct?

Advocate wrote: ↑Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:40 am There are two fundamental (and fundamentally different) issues at stake. The first sense of term means the right to express oneself, but equally important is the right of others to hear opinions different than their own. You cannot have a well-functioning society without a maximum degree of both.

And, what do you KNOW to be the 'maximum degree', of both?

Age wrote:
Also could you name just one human being who says that words only which supposedly
hurt feelings ( as though that is some actual thing ) is equivalent to physical violence ?

The transgender You Tuber essence of thought has said this