Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 20:08:03 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2019 20:17:24 GMT -5
Imagine a world where the free marketplace of ideas is being subverted by people literally paid to say factually wrong things!
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 1, 2019 20:51:28 GMT -5
Imagine a world where the free marketplace of ideas is being subverted by people literally paid to say factually wrong things!
We don't have to imagine it. This has been going on since Freedom of Speech and Press started! You should see some of the things candidates said in the early 1800's.
We just have to be careful to check the FACTS.
At least in a Free Marketplace of Ideas, other people can state different points of view and point out the flaws and errors.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2019 13:55:42 GMT -5
Imagine a world where the free marketplace of ideas is being subverted by people literally paid to say factually wrong things! We don't have to imagine it. This has been going on since Freedom of Speech and Press started! You should see some of the things candidates said in the early 1800's. We just have to be careful to check the FACTS. At least in a Free Marketplace of Ideas, other people can state different points of view and point out the flaws and errors.
Bob
And in a free marketplace of ideas, we can pour tons of money into those saying the wrong things so they can reach a thousand times the audience that the fact checkers do.
Capitalism is the best!
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 2, 2019 15:22:48 GMT -5
We don't have to imagine it. This has been going on since Freedom of Speech and Press started! You should see some of the things candidates said in the early 1800's. We just have to be careful to check the FACTS. At least in a Free Marketplace of Ideas, other people can state different points of view and point out the flaws and errors.
Bob
And in a free marketplace of ideas, we can pour tons of money into those saying the wrong things so they can reach a thousand times the audience that the fact checkers do.
Capitalism is the best!
You've convinced me! LET'S BAN ALL LIES!
Now all we have to figure out is exactly who is going to be in charge of that?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 3, 2019 12:28:10 GMT -5
And in a free marketplace of ideas, we can pour tons of money into those saying the wrong things so they can reach a thousand times the audience that the fact checkers do. Capitalism is the best!
You've convinced me! LET'S BAN ALL LIES! Now all we have to figure out is exactly who is going to be in charge of that? Bob
Obviously Randians would be the best fit, they already have a belief system that is objectively correct and true.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 3, 2019 14:00:51 GMT -5
You've convinced me! LET'S BAN ALL LIES! Now all we have to figure out is exactly who is going to be in charge of that? Bob
Obviously Randians would be the best fit, they already have a belief system that is objectively correct and true.
Bad choice. Objectivists strongly back Freedom of Speech.
How about letting Postmodernists be in charge of banning lies? Postmodernists believe that truth is dependent on social choices. That means the definition of "lies" will be a social choice too. So there will be plenty of lies to ban. And if there aren't enough lies, the definitions can always be changed to create more lies!
As an extra benefit, with so many lies to ban, there will be plenty of new jobs created for lie investigators. That will reduce unemployment.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 13:35:41 GMT -5
Obviously Randians would be the best fit, they already have a belief system that is objectively correct and true. Bad choice. Objectivists strongly back Freedom of Speech. How does that make any sense? Why would you want people to spread obvious lies?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 4, 2019 14:07:16 GMT -5
Bad choice. Objectivists strongly back Freedom of Speech. How does that make any sense? Why would you want people to spread obvious lies?
Freedom of Speech means people can also spread obvious lies. It also means that other people have the right to point out that obvious lies are lies.
And if the lies cause damage to anyone, there are laws against Libel and Slander. The aggrieved party can always sue for damages.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2019 18:45:05 GMT -5
Because as we know, only slander against specific people actually causes any damage at all.
Belief in a Jewish world conspiracy was definitely harmless and did not actually cause any sort of damage.
Neither did the belief in imaginary communists, nor the belief in witches and demonic possessions.
And definitely not Climate Change Denial.
Believing that libel and slander protects anybody against these lies is truly the mark of advanced idiocy.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 4, 2019 21:33:43 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 12:10:09 GMT -5
What protects people against lies is the truth. And in a Free Society, the truth will always eventually win out. LOL, "always eventually"! Way to hedge your bets with weasle words, Bob!
When exactly does the truth win out, and how can you tell?
Please give an example how laws against Holocaust denial have been used against people who present the Holocaust as fact.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 5, 2019 13:00:41 GMT -5
What protects people against lies is the truth. And in a Free Society, the truth will always eventually win out. LOL, "always eventually"! Way to hedge your bets with weasle words, Bob! So you are denying that with Freedom of Speech, that Truth is more likely to come out faster vs. censorship? I would like to hear your argument for that one. There are many different subjects in the world and each of them has it's own timetable. But in each case, the truth will be revealed faster that if there is censorship. Do you have any examples where truth came out faster because of censorship? Because of Church censorship, it took centuries to recognize that the Earth goes around the Sun. Are you claiming that Free Speech would have made no difference here? It sounds like you are. That wasn't my claim. Laws against one type of free speech will eventually lead to laws against other types of free speech. There was an example of this in Austria just last year. According to you, the Austrian government had every right to disparage this hateful, bigoted speech because a 50 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl is not really child molestation in this case. Is that what you are claiming? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 13:52:19 GMT -5
LOL, "always eventually"! Way to hedge your bets with weasle words, Bob! So you are denying that with Freedom of Speech, that Truth is more likely to come out faster vs. censorship? I would like to hear your argument for that one. I don't need to "deny" what hasn't been shown to be correct. Show me the data that led you to the conclusion that "truth is more likely to come out faster", preferably from a reliable source, so we can discuss its validity.
Really?What's your source for this assertion? Where can I look at these timetables? Is that one of these truths? How long did it need to "win out" in the free marketplace of ideas? You literally said: "Laws against lies can eventually be used against the truth."So when you wrote that, you didn't actually mean that the same laws will be used against the truth after all? Because that seems strongly implied by your wording. What does this case have to do with your claim? Austria's blasphemy laws predate laws against Holocaust Denial by nearly a century.
Or were you argueing that laws against Holocaust Denial are a direct consequence of blasphemy laws, and that governments have crossed the line when they started convicting Nazis for lying?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 5, 2019 15:29:41 GMT -5
So you are denying that with Freedom of Speech, that Truth is more likely to come out faster vs. censorship? I would like to hear your argument for that one. I don't need to "deny" what hasn't been shown to be correct. Show me the data that led you to the conclusion that "truth is more likely to come out faster", preferably from a reliable source, so we can discuss its validity. (rofl)So you are actually claiming that Free Speech permits truth to come out faster than Censorship! That's a good one! Next I suppose you will ask for "proof" that circles are more round than squares. Censorship RESTRICTS the flow of ideas. Free Speech does not. And you are actually claiming that you don't know which one let's ideas flow faster? It's a matter of simple observation. Some scientific research projects take years. Some can be done in a few days. Information for some news articles can be gathered in a few hours. Others may involve months of research. Do you deny this? Did anyone try to censor this idea? Of not, then you just gave a poor example. Please read what I said more carefully. I aid "EVENTUALLY". I never said "IMMEDIATELY" which is what you are implying. What these laws do is clear the way for other laws affecting other subjects. For example, laws banning Holocaust Denial were followed by laws against insulting Islam. A woman in Austria was convicted of that just last year. Once you ban some view you don't like, that clears the way for someone else to call for laws banning what they don't like. And that's exactly what seems to be happening in Europe. What does this case have to do with your claim? Austria's blasphemy laws predate laws against Holocaust Denial by nearly a century. Or were you argueing that laws against Holocaust Denial are a direct consequence of blasphemy laws, and that governments have crossed the line when they started convicting Nazis for lying?[/quote] The approval of these Austrian laws was just granted by the European Court of Human Rights last year. Laws like that are now legal in the entire European Union. And that happened just last year, not a century ago. Read the article. So apparently you approve of prosecuting someone for defaming the Prophet by calling him a pedophile. Is that correct? If you say no, does that mean you would be subject to arrest in Austria for violating blasphemy laws? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2019 16:32:16 GMT -5
I don't need to "deny" what hasn't been shown to be correct. Show me the data that led you to the conclusion that "truth is more likely to come out faster", preferably from a reliable source, so we can discuss its validity. (rofl)So you are actually claiming that Free Speech permits truth to come out faster than Censorship! That's a good one! Next I suppose you will ask for "proof" that circles are more round than squares. Censorship RESTRICTS the flow of ideas. Free Speech does not. And you are actually claiming that you don't know which one let's ideas flow faster? If this is something that "everyone knows" then it shouldn't be a problem to come up with evidence to support your argument. So, where is your evidence? So where can I find these "time tables" based on your - no doubt objective - observation data? So how long did this idea take to "win out"? Have you tested its speed in a free marketplace vs. a censored one? So you are saying it hasn't happened yet? Blasphemy laws have existed in Austria since the days of the Habsburg Monarchy over a century ago, whereas laws against Holocaust Denial were only introduced after WW2. How is it possible for the latter to cause the former? And apparently you also provided an example of reverse causality! Blasphemy laws have been part of the Austrian legal code for longer than the Austrian Republic exists, whereas laws against Holocaust Denial were only passed after WW2 at the behest of the Allies. Have you seen me claiming that? [/quote]What does this case have to do with your claim? Austria's blasphemy laws predate laws against Holocaust Denial by nearly a century. Or were you argueing that laws against Holocaust Denial are a direct consequence of blasphemy laws, and that governments have crossed the line when they started convicting Nazis for lying?[/quote] The approval of these Austrian laws was just granted by the European Court of Human Rights last year. Laws like that are now legal in the entire European Union. And that happened just last year, not a century ago. Read the article.[/quote] These laws have always been legal in the European Union. And you still haven't shown how this is a consequence of laws against Holocaust Denial, and got the timeline wrong to boot. Oh, and btw, a tip if you don't want to come off like an idiot in a debate: Start collecting evidence for your claims before you make them, instead of hastily scrambling for whatever scrap you find on a quick Google search later on. That way, you can more easily come off like you have actually done your research and understand what you are talking about. Only in your delusional fantasies.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 5, 2019 22:14:00 GMT -5
(rofl)So you are actually claiming that Free Speech permits truth to come out faster than Censorship! That's a good one! Next I suppose you will ask for "proof" that circles are more round than squares. Censorship RESTRICTS the flow of ideas. Free Speech does not. And you are actually claiming that you don't know which one let's ideas flow faster? If this is something that "everyone knows" then it shouldn't be a problem to come up with evidence to support your argument. So, where is your evidence? I didn't say that "everyone knows it." You made that up. I said Censorship restricts the free flow of ideas and Free Speech does not. Do you deny this? I never mentioned "time tables." you made that up. I asked you a straight question. Do you deny that information for some news articles and scientific projects can be gathered in a few hours, while others can take months or years. Do you have an answer? Censored ideas can't win out at all as long as they are censored. If they do, then they are not "censored." So your question is incoherent. Sorry. You didn't post enough of the previous conversation so I don't know what the "it" is that you are referring to. True. My error. But the European Court just re=affirmed that law last year. They could have overturned that ancient anti-blasphemy law, but they didn't. And THAT is the result of the more recent laws banning "hate speech." I already pointed out that the ruling of the European Court just last year is a much more recent and ominous precedent. I don't see you denying it either. Do you believe that a 50 year old man having sex with a 9 year old girl is child molestation? Nope. I made a mistake. But last year's verdict of the European Court set a new precedent upholding those hundred year old laws against "blasphemy." Didn't they? These laws have always been legal in the European Union.[/quote] And now these blasphemy laws have been re-affirmed, haven't they? I already retracted that twice. Still beating a dead horse? Okay. So you don't approve of prosecuting someone for calling the prophet a pedophile. Is that right? Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 14:57:26 GMT -5
If this is something that "everyone knows" then it shouldn't be a problem to come up with evidence to support your argument. So, where is your evidence? I didn't say that "everyone knows it." You made that up. I said Censorship restricts the free flow of ideas and Free Speech does not. You said that already. I am still waiting for supporting evidence. Nope. "There are many different subjects in the world and each of them has it's own timetable. But in each case, the truth will be revealed faster that if there is censorship."So you cannot actually prove your claim? I don't understand your question. What do you mean by laws being "re-affirmed"? In European legal tradition, laws are on the books until they are removed by legismative action. The European Court of Human Rights stated (and despite your claim to the contrary, this was actually a very controversial ruling) that they do not consider blasphemy laws a violation of the European Charter of Human Rights. That is literally all the European Court of Human Rights can rule on, hence the name, European Court "of Human Rights". So you say, but you have so far failed to produce any evidence in favor of that claim. Event A happening after event B does not necessarily mean that event B caused event A. And correlation, as the saying goes, does not imply causation. In other to show a causal link, you have to prove that one event was in fact caused by the other. Precedent for... what? "Precedent" for a law that has existed for over a century? Do you actually know what these terms mean or do you just include them because they sounded cool on Matlock? As soon as you stop trying to saddle it for a ride.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 6, 2019 21:55:34 GMT -5
I didn't say that "everyone knows it." You made that up. I said Censorship restricts the free flow of ideas and Free Speech does not. You said that already. I am still waiting for supporting evidence.
These posts are getting too long. I will answer each point in separate posts.
Here is the Definition of "censorship."
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4]"
"Censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government"
Therefore by the very definition of "censorship", censorship suppresses communication.
And here is the definition of "suppression."
" 1 : to put down by authority or force : subdue suppress a riot 2 : to keep from public knowledge: such as a : to keep secret b : to stop or prohibit the publication or revelation of suppress the test results"
"Censorship" is the suppression of speech or writing.
"Suppression" to keep from public knowledge.
Keeping information from public knowledge means the flow of information has been reduced.
This is built into the definitions of censorship and suppression.
Therefore censorship reduces the flow of information by definition.
Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 6, 2019 22:06:24 GMT -5
The proof is in the definitions of "censorship" and "suppression." As I said in the post just above this one, the definitions of "censorship" and "suppression" mean there has been a reduction in the flow of information. Reduction in the flow of information means that ideas cannot be circulated, discussed, and tested. Therefore ideas cannot be tested to see if they are true or false. Given these standard definitions of "censorship" and "suppression", the result must follow. Of course you can always change the definitions if you like. The problem with that is you may not get too many people to agree with your changes. Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 6, 2019 23:01:00 GMT -5
Oh, I guess I did mention time tables. Sorry. Everybody knows that some processes take longer and some a shorter time. This is readily observable. Do you deny this? Bob
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 6, 2019 23:06:34 GMT -5
Here's one that you haven't answered yet.
Do you believe that a 50 year old man who has sex with a 9 year old girl is a pedophile?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 5:07:18 GMT -5
The proof is in the definitions of "censorship" and "suppression." As I said in the post just above this one, the definitions of "censorship" and "suppression" mean there has been a reduction in the flow of information. Reduction in the flow of information means that ideas cannot be circulated, discussed, and tested. Therefore ideas cannot be tested to see if they are true or false. Given these standard definitions of "censorship" and "suppression", the result must follow. Of course you can always change the definitions if you like. The problem with that is you may not get too many people to agree with your changes. Bob A simple "no" would have been enough.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 5:11:27 GMT -5
Here's one that you haven't answered yet.
Do you believe that a 50 year old man who has sex with a 9 year old girl is a pedophile?
Bob
According to Wikipedia, "pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children."
In order to be a pedophile, a 50 year old man would have to be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder in which he experiences primary or exclusive attraction to children.
So not every child rapist would necessarily be a pedophile in the clinical sense.
In Mohammad's case, it's unlikely, since he had several adult wives in addition to his child wife, and sexual attraction on either side was not seen as a necessary precondition for marriage in medieval times.
Satisfied?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 7, 2019 11:15:04 GMT -5
Here's one that you haven't answered yet.
Do you believe that a 50 year old man who has sex with a 9 year old girl is a pedophile?
Bob
According to Wikipedia, "pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children."
In order to be a pedophile, a 50 year old man would have to be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder in which he experiences primary or exclusive attraction to children.
So not every child rapist would necessarily be a pedophile in the clinical sense.
In Mohammad's case, it's unlikely, since he had several adult wives in addition to his child wife, and sexual attraction on either side was not seen as a necessary precondition for marriage in medieval times.
Satisfied?
Okay. A 50 year old man who has sex with a 9 year old girl is a "child rapist" (you just said so).
When the Prophet was about 50 years old, he had sex with a 9 year old girl.
Do you believe that this makes the Prophet a "child rapist?"
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 12:04:46 GMT -5
According to Wikipedia, "pedophilia (alternatively spelt paedophilia) is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children." In order to be a pedophile, a 50 year old man would have to be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder in which he experiences primary or exclusive attraction to children. So not every child rapist would necessarily be a pedophile in the clinical sense.
In Mohammad's case, it's unlikely, since he had several adult wives in addition to his child wife, and sexual attraction on either side was not seen as a necessary precondition for marriage in medieval times.
Satisfied?
Okay. A 50 year old man who has sex with a 9 year old girl is a "child rapist" (you just said so). When the Prophet was about 50 years old, he had sex with a 9 year old girl. Do you believe that this makes the Prophet a "child rapist?" Bob
If he actually had sex with a child (which is not verified by any source IIRC) then he would be a child rapist, yes, much like Joseph of Nazareth (it's very likely that Mary was of an age that would make her a minor in modern society). We are talking about societies where child rape was considered a normal form of marital relationship.
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 7, 2019 12:55:05 GMT -5
Okay. A 50 year old man who has sex with a 9 year old girl is a "child rapist" (you just said so). When the Prophet was about 50 years old, he had sex with a 9 year old girl. Do you believe that this makes the Prophet a "child rapist?" If he actually had sex with a child (which is not verified by any source IIRC) then he would be a child rapist, yes, much like Joseph of Nazareth (it's very likely that Mary was of an age that would make her a minor in modern society). We are talking about societies where child rape was considered a normal form of marital relationship. Actually, her age at both marriage and consummation of marriage is confirmed by several sources: So basically you are saying that Muhammad was a "child rapist" but that this was okay because of the society he lived in? Is that your view? If it is, then you realize that you can be prosecuted under Austria's blasphemy laws? And what would your defense be? After all, you posted that people who deny Climate Change should not be allowed to do so. No sense arguing that your ideas on Climate Change are "right" and the anti-blasphemy laws are "wrong". According to Postmodernist beliefs, there is no privileged narrative. Therefore the offense that religious people take at your claims about Muhammad is just as valid as the offense you take over Climate Change Denial. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 15:07:33 GMT -5
So basically you are saying that Muhammad was a "child rapist" but that this was okay because of the society he lived in? Is that your view? I never said that. Maybe you should provide direct quotes instead of making up strawmen. So you are saying Holocaust Denial is the same thing as speaking the truth?
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 7, 2019 16:32:01 GMT -5
So basically you are saying that Muhammad was a "child rapist" but that this was okay because of the society he lived in? Is that your view? I never said that. Maybe you should provide direct quotes instead of making up strawmen. Sure. No problem. Here is your exact quote: "If he actually had sex with a child (which is not verified by any source IIRC) then he would be a child rapist... We are talking about societies where child rape was considered a normal form of marital relationship." I showed that there is indeed evidence from more than one source that verifies he did have sex with a 9 year old child (whom he married when she was 5). With this verified, your conclusion that the Prophet was a child rapist follows. I wouldn't. But a postmodernist could easily do that. After all, there is nothing that would privilege one world view over another. Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 18:08:10 GMT -5
|
|