14 replies to this topic

[Mr. Roboto]

Louis Theroux: The Most Hated Family in America [BBC]

[cousin it]

I bet some of Fred's daughters are something else in the sack. Most of those sexually repressed religious nuts are...

[Tatiana Kudrin]

those people should be jailed or something.

[cousin it]

^^Then we wouldn't be able to mock them. Freedom of speech is a concept that a lot of the rest of the world don't understand. We have to defend the rights of even the most despicable speech(KKK, Nazis, Neo-cons, ... ect.) for if not, who will protect ours? Who is to be the judge of what is proper discourse... me, you, the government, the church?

[Tatiana Kudrin]

it's not that we don't understand it, but we are afraid of its consequences. i'd agree with freedom of opinion without any limitation because it's personal. if freedom of speech implies you can create homophobic groups and preach hatred and try to convert people and twist their way of thinking with silly ideas and possibly lead to murder... well, this kind of people should be stopped even if most people have enough intelligence to avoid those retarded groups.

[cousin it]

The tyranny of the majority is dangerous for freedom loving people everywhere. Aristotle made some good arguments about it's danger. When I have the time, I will see if I can find some of them.

[Tatiana Kudrin]

The tyranny of the majority is dangerous for freedom loving people everywhere.

I can understand the point but some other philosophers (philosophs??) like Kant and Rouseeau said freedom is okay as long as it's controlled and i tend to agree with them. too much freedom can lead to destruction and chaos.

let's take this statement about the freedom of speech:

Another difficult case is hate speech. Most European liberal democracies have limitations on hate speech, but it is debatable whether these can be justified by the harm principle as formulated by Mill. One would have to show that such speech violated rights, directly and in the first instance. A famous example of hate speech is the Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois. In fact, the intention was not to engage in political speech at all, but simply to march through a predominantly Jewish community dressed in storm trooper uniforms and wearing swastikas (although the Illinois Supreme Court interpreted the wearing of swastikas as “symbolic political speech”). It is clear that most people, especially those who lived in Skokie, were outraged and offended by the march, but were they harmed? There was no plan to cause physical injury and the marchers did not intend to damage property.

http://plato.stanfor...MilHarPriHatSpe

quick analysis:

famous example of hate speech is the Nazi march through Skokie, Illinois. In fact, the intention was not to engage in political speech at all, but simply to march through a predominantly Jewish community dressed in storm trooper uniforms and wearing swastikas (although the Illinois Supreme Court interpreted the wearing of swastikas as “symbolic political speech”).

so it wouldn't have been okay if it had been clearly about politics? that's crazy.

In fact, the intention was not to engage in political speech at all, but simply to march through a predominantly Jewish community dressed in storm trooper uniforms and wearing swastikas

so what was the intention? i'm sorry but i don't get how it could have been otherwise. to me, politics are involved here.

It is clear that most people, especially those who lived in Skokie, were outraged and offended by the march, but were they harmed? There was no plan to cause physical injury and the marchers did not intend to damage property.

i strongly disagree with those statements. there's no need for physical violence to do harm. clearly wearing nazi crosses and walking thru a jewish community wearing those signs is offensive and a psychological aggression. i'm not jew but i'm uterly shocked by this march as it's highly symbolic even if no one was physically injured.
besides what if this march had been the cause of a violent reaction? those nazis were provocative and that definitely could have led to fightings and even worse.



edit, sorry if my example doesn't illustrate how too much freedom can lead to destruction. i found this stuff as i was browsing around and decided to post it here.

[cousin it]

edit, sorry if my example doesn't illustrate how too much freedom can lead to destruction. i found this stuff as i was browsing around and decided to post it here.

I couldn't disagree more. While somewhat familiar with Mill's writing, his solution was just more of the same... a majority is a majority. It is the relativism of the current administration that has lead to a moral vacuum in the party of the right.

Freedom of conscience has to be absolute, or else we end up with the likes of Mussolini et. al. What better way for a moral relativist to seize absolute control than to restrict the rights of those that the majority find repulsive?

[Tatiana Kudrin]

Freedom of conscience has to be absolute, or else we end up with the likes of Mussolini et. al. What better way for a moral relativist to seize absolute control than to restrict the rights of those that the majority find repulsive?

i think it would be more relevant to say "freedom of conscience should be absolute".
freedom of conscience is utopy, sman. no one is totally free, there's always some kind of restriction somewhere (religion, laws, education and medias are prolly the biggest ones). if you're taught to think in one way or another, if people tell you how you should think and you start thinking as you're told, then you're not free.
also, the majority is necessary. i'm not talking about some extreme cases like mussolini, hitler and so many, but in 'normal' societies, the majority needs to be here to guarantee a stability in the society. there has to be common beliefs or everything would break down. that said, that majority mustn't keep you from having your own opinions on certain subjects. if you don't believe in god, no one should torture you until you claim you beleive in it.
i would say that majority and minority are both necessary. there needs to be a minority to question the majority, there needs to be a minority to tell the majority it's wrong. there will come a point when the minority will actually create a change in the majority. but i'm only thinking about certain situations ( like when most people thought you could get AIDS if you touch someone who has it while a minority of people said it wasn't the case ; how being gay was seen as evil ; how being a protestant was evil as well ; majority of people vs Copernicus and Galileo ..). conflicts of opinions are necessary for sure. there would be no evolution without them. Experience is also necessary. experience can prove the minority or the majority is right or wrong (Galileo proven right thanx to people like C. Colombus). it also tells you and me that it's not okay to parade with nazi signs in a jewish area. in this case we have a minority that acts in a stupid way and illustrates a system proven wrong and dangerous. the comforting thing is to know that most people would not condone this group due to knowledge and common thinking.

[cousin it]

^^ sounds kind of like "The Golden Mean", and I agree. It is the extremes that manifest unhealthy behavior.

[Tatiana Kudrin]

^^ sounds kind of like "The Golden Mean"

i'm kinda embarrassed as i don't know what you're talking about.

[cousin it]

^^ sounds kind of like "The Golden Mean"

i'm kinda embarrassed as i don't know what you're talking about.

http://www.wsu.edu/~...GREECE/MEAN.HTM

[Tatiana Kudrin]

I have to look for the exact translation of "mean" in my native language because the way the word is used there is a little confusing. i really have no idea on how to translate it. it seems that according the context we would use different words.

[cousin it]

A mean is kind of like an average, but it is the point that is half way between the two end points.

[Tatiana Kudrin]

i got that part but it's like it echoes to nothing. how to say? when i read a text in english i get an automatic translation in my head or so, but i'm stuck on this word. i can't find its equivalent in my language. shhh, i've always thought maths are boring. yo, i got it. it would be 'juste milieu'. it took me a while. maybe i should get some coffee like Punk.