Encouragement for Lucifershammer

Originally posted by dottewell
Most people don't base their morality on a theory of fundamental rights. Most people, for example, would agree that spreading race hate was morally wrong; the question is whether we should therefore legislate against it. Most countries in Western Europe, like America, take a conservative view - that, for various ethical and pragmatic reasons, ...[text shortened]... defend with my life your right to say it. Then, when you do, I won't listen."

The second problem is that you don't see the irony of your position, which is: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it. Then, when you do, I won't listen."


This stupid comment shows your problem; what is the "irony" in believing someone else can say whatever they want but that I don't have to believe everything other people say?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The second problem is that you don't see the irony of your position, which is: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it. Then, when you do, I won't listen."


This stupid comment shows your problem; what is the "irony" in believing someone else can say whatever they want but that I don't have to believe everything other people say?

Of course you don't have to believe it. But you should at least listen.

Originally posted by dottewell
Of course you don't have to believe it. But you should at least listen.

Who says I don't? Have you listened to any Holocaust deniers lately (the ones not in prison in the countries that respect free speech soooooooooooooooo much anyway)?

Originally posted by dottewell
Of course you don't have to believe it. But you should at least listen.

Why on earth would he have to listen to anybody's BS.
Once he has seen the evidence , further listening to denials is just a waste of time.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Why on earth would he have to listen to anybody's BS.
Once he has seen the evidence , further listening to denials is just a waste of time.

I think it's good to gather new evidence and listen to people's arguments, and to at least make sure you understand what they are saying before dismissing them.

(At least, that's the view I take of discussions, on a chess website, about the correct legal approach to holocaust denial...)

Originally posted by frogstomp
Why on earth would he have to listen to anybody's BS.
Once he has seen the evidence , further listening to denials is just a waste of time.

Frogstomp: "Why on earth would he have to listen to anybody's BS."

😀

Originally posted by dottewell
Most people don't base their morality on a theory of fundamental rights. Most people, for example, would agree that spreading race hate was morally wrong; the question is whether we should therefore legislate against it. Most countries in Western Europe, like America, take a conservative view - that, for various ethical and pragmatic reasons, defend with my life your right to say it. Then, when you do, I won't listen."

Dottewell; The second problem is that you don't see the irony of your position, which is: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it. Then, when you do, I won't listen."

😀 ..... bull's eye ..... 😉

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Frogstomp: "Why on earth would he have to listen to anybody's BS."

😀

Read two different ideas into my post.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Dottewell; The second problem is that you don't see the irony of your position, which is: "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it. Then, when you do, I won't listen."

😀 ..... bull's eye ..... 😉

You can't see why defending someone's right to speak doesn't require listening to them?

Originally posted by frogstomp
You can't see why defending someone's right to speak doesn't require listening to them?

Talk to the marauder about this .... lol ..... Hopefully he'll listen ... 😉

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Talk to the marauder about this .... lol ..... Hopefully he'll listen ... 😉

no1 has his own take on this , and other things too. like , for instance he thinks you're not an idiot

Originally posted by bbarr
If one's reputation is important because it conduces to the satisfaction of other ends (e.g., life, livelihood, etc.), or because it is a necessary condition for the expression and protection of other rights, then a putative right to a reputation is, by definition, not fundamental.

IIRC, both Locke and Paine establish such "fundamental rights" as expression as necessary conditions for the expression and protection of the more basic right to life. Wouldn't your logic mean that free speech is not a fundamental right?

Conversely, there is no reason to assume that just because a right is necessary for the expression and protection of other rights that it is not fundamental. One can (and does) very easily have a hierarchy of rights.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMAO!! The link I provided has both excerpts from the trial and newspaper accounts. You obviously didn't bother to even read it.

As I said, I'm not interested in the sociological aspects of the case.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're ridiculous; you assert there exists a fundamental right to a "reputation". It is YOUR burden to show such a thing exists. "Reputation" is based on other people's opinion of you and no one has any "right" to have other people think well of them.

Please also stop making statements about the American political system; they are so laughably inaccurate that you should be embarrassed to show your utter ignorance.

You're still chasing the strawman - I never said anything about a right to have other people think well of you. But you do have a right against false accusations (why is perjury a crime?)

Besides repeating retort #7 from the no1 handbook, do you have anything to say that actually refutes my argument that States operate as block-vote associations in the Presidential elections?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
IIRC, both Locke and Paine establish such "fundamental rights" as expression as necessary conditions for the expression and protection of the more basic right to life. Wouldn't your logic mean that free speech is not a fundamental right?

Conversely, there is no reason to assume that just because a right is necessary for the expression and pr ...[text shortened]... rights that it is not fundamental. One can (and does) very easily have a hierarchy of rights.

IIRC, Locke didn't claim that the right to life was more fundamental to the rights to liberty and property. He thought that the rights to life, liberty and property were all fundamental rights. Of course, it is a necessary condition for the expression of the rights to liberty and property that one's right to life be respected, but that is not equivalent to the claim that the authority of the right on others, or its normativity in general, is derived from the right to life.

No, this reading of Locke (and I may be mistaken here) does not entail that the right to freedom of expression is a right the importance of which is derived from some more fundamental right. Rather, the right to freedom of expression is an instance of the more general right to liberty, just as the right not to be shot is an instance of the more general right to life.