Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 18:09:54 GMT -5
So Bob, do you believe that there are ideas which are wrong, and ideas which are right? Do you believe that right and wrong ideas are equally valuable, and equally worthy of protection?
Would you treat Holocaust Denial the same as any correct and true idea? If so, why?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 7, 2019 20:19:10 GMT -5
So Bob, do you believe that there are ideas which are wrong, and ideas which are right? Yes, of course there are both right and wrong ideas. What do you mean by "protection?" Ideas don't need protection. The people who come up with ideas need protection from tyrannical governments who historically have always tried to suppress them. I would not treat the ideas the same. However, I would treat the people who put the ideas forth the same because everyone has the same Right of Freedom of Speech. If I take away someone's Freedom of Speech because I find their ideas disgusting and repugnant, I create a precedent for them to take away my ideas in the future. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2019 15:51:23 GMT -5
So Bob, do you believe that there are ideas which are wrong, and ideas which are right? Yes, of course there are both right and wrong ideas. What do you mean by "protection?" Ideas don't need protection. The people who come up with ideas need protection from tyrannical governments who historically have always tried to suppress them. I would not treat the ideas the same. However, I would treat the people who put the ideas forth the same because everyone has the same Right of Freedom of Speech. If I take away someone's Freedom of Speech because I find their ideas disgusting and repugnant, I create a precedent for them to take away my ideas in the future. Bob Why are you so concerned that a law against objectively wrong ideas could be used against your own objectively correct beliefs? Do you think other people are incapable of distinguishing between true and false statements? If you yourself do not treat objectively correct ideas the same as you do objectively wrong ideas, then why are you advocating that the law should treat them the same way? In libel law, saying something truthful about another person cannot be defamation. Are you saying that this is incorrect, and all attacks against an individual's reputation should be treated the same? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 8, 2019 19:27:59 GMT -5
Yes, of course there are both right and wrong ideas. What do you mean by "protection?" Ideas don't need protection. The people who come up with ideas need protection from tyrannical governments who historically have always tried to suppress them. I would not treat the ideas the same. However, I would treat the people who put the ideas forth the same because everyone has the same Right of Freedom of Speech. If I take away someone's Freedom of Speech because I find their ideas disgusting and repugnant, I create a precedent for them to take away my ideas in the future. Bob Why are you so concerned that a law against objectively wrong ideas could be used against your own objectively correct beliefs? Do you think other people are incapable of distinguishing between true and false statements? LOL! Who is going to be enforcing those laws against "wrong ideas?" Government Bureaucrats. That's who!Are you actually claiming that Government Bureaucrats have NEVER used the laws to their own advantage? I am an individual. The decisions I make affect mostly me. Government bureaucrats make decisions that can affect thousands (even millions) of others. And government officials can punish people for having the "wrong" ideas. I can't (and I wouldn't). Your point being...? Bob |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 8, 2019 19:45:47 GMT -5
Why are you so concerned that a law against objectively wrong ideas could be used against your own objectively correct beliefs? Do you think other people are incapable of distinguishing between true and false statements? LOL! Who is going to be enforcing those laws against "wrong ideas?" Government Bureaucrats. That's who!Are you actually claiming that Government Bureaucrats have NEVER used the laws to their own advantage? I am an individual. The decisions I make affect mostly me. I have no power to ban ideas. And if I did have the power to ban ideas, I wouldn't use it! Government bureaucrats make decisions that can affect thousands (even millions) of others. And government officials can punish people for having the "wrong" ideas. I can't (and I wouldn't). Your point being...? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 7:00:41 GMT -5
LOL! Who is going to be enforcing those laws against "wrong ideas?" Government Bureaucrats. That's who!Are you actually claiming that Government Bureaucrats have NEVER used the laws to their own advantage? Evidently you would need to only charge those people with enforcement who have objectively correct beliefs concerning this issue. So you are saying that we should not make your ideas the basis of government and legislation; that libertarian is only valid as an ideology for individuals whose decisions do not affect other people very much? You are also argueing that government bureaucrats shouldn't punish people for spreading and advocating the wrong ideas, even though they destroy the foundations of reason and logic, and threaten the existence of Western civilization itself. Are you saying that it is more important to protect people who spread lies that threaten the very foundations of civilization, than to save your civilization? If so, why do you believe that? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 9, 2019 10:32:29 GMT -5
LOL! Who is going to be enforcing those laws against "wrong ideas?" Government Bureaucrats. That's who!Are you actually claiming that Government Bureaucrats have NEVER used the laws to their own advantage? Evidently you would need to only charge those people with enforcement who have objectively correct beliefs concerning this issue. So then you would only hire people who agree with you that the ideas you personally don't like have to be suppressed? Is that what you are saying? No. I didn't say that at all. I said that I personally distinguish between what I consider to be good ideas and bad ideas but that I would not ban ideas i thought were bad even if I had the power to do so. And the government should do the same thing! Freedom of Speech means that the government cannot ban ideas just because some bureaucrat doesn't like them. Right! Freedom of Speech is a major part of the Foundation of Civilization. If we get rid of that, then we ourselves are already threatening the foundations of our civilization. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2019 18:20:09 GMT -5
So the destruction of civilization isn't that much of a big deal, I take it.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 9, 2019 19:20:11 GMT -5
So the destruction of civilization isn't that much of a big deal, I take it.
The elimination of Freedom of Speech IS the beginning of the destruction of civilization.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2019 6:27:17 GMT -5
My point is that the law already recognizes a difference between correct speech and lies: The former cannot be slanderous speech, only the latter can; you can only defame someone if you are incorrect.
In this instance, the government decides what is correct and what is incorrect - by your own argument, based on whatever the dominant government ideology is, since as you are implying with your argument, the government is incapable of making decisions based on objective truth.
If you were correct, then people inundiated with the government could not be subject to libel cases because the government deems everything they say correct. So, do you think crimes against libel and slander should be struck from law books for restricting free speech?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 11, 2019 11:26:44 GMT -5
My point is that the law already recognizes a difference between correct speech and lies: The former cannot be slanderous speech, only the latter can; you can only defame someone if you are incorrect.
In this instance, the government decides what is correct and what is incorrect - by your own argument, based on whatever the dominant government ideology is, since as you are implying with your argument, the government is incapable of making decisions based on objective truth.
If you were correct, then people inundiated with the government could not be subject to libel cases because the government deems everything they say correct. So, do you think crimes against libel and slander should be struck from law books for restricting free speech?
Libel and Slander are subject to CIVIL penalties, not CRIMINAL penalties. Libel and Slander are not "crimes."
"Written defamation is called "libel," while spoken defamation is called "slander." Defamation is not a crime, but it is a "tort" (a civil wrong, rather than a criminal wrong). A person who has been defamed can sue the person who did the defaming for damages."
Where there are no damages to specific people, there is no "crime." There is not even a tort. And the government does not decide what is correct or not correct.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 11:58:35 GMT -5
The logical conclusion to your position is that people should not be allowes to sue for defamation, since the government is inherently untrustworthy and incompetent at determining truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 12, 2019 20:48:13 GMT -5
The logical conclusion to your position is that people should not be allowes to sue for defamation, since the government is inherently untrustworthy and incompetent at determining truth.
Who said that in cases of libel and slander that "the government determines the truth?" I didn't for the simple reason that it's not so.
A jury of private citizens determines the verdict. The government's only function in cases of libel or slander is only to set up the proceedings.
And private citizens are not the government. 
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2019 22:03:33 GMT -5
The logical conclusion to your position is that people should not be allowes to sue for defamation, since the government is inherently untrustworthy and incompetent at determining truth.
Who said that in cases of libel and slander that "the government determines the truth?" I didn't for the simple reason that it's not so. A jury of private citizens determines the verdict. The government's only function in cases of libel or slander is only to set up the proceedings. And private citizens are not the government. Bob
So truth is determined by democratic vote, then? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 12, 2019 22:11:07 GMT -5
Who said that in cases of libel and slander that "the government determines the truth?" I didn't for the simple reason that it's not so. A jury of private citizens determines the verdict. The government's only function in cases of libel or slander is only to set up the proceedings. And private citizens are not the government. Bob
So truth is determined by democratic vote, then?
No. But legal cases are.
Unless you have a better way.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2019 15:07:39 GMT -5
So truth is determined by democratic vote, then? No. But legal cases are. In these legal cases, a democratic vote decides whether I told the truth. So what you are saying is that democratic votes are the best way to determine what is true? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 13, 2019 20:36:31 GMT -5
In these legal cases, a democratic vote decides whether I told the truth. No. In civil cases, the jury merely decides what action is to be taken. Again, no. The democratic vote of a jury is to decide what course of action is to be taken.
TRUTH IS NEVER DETERMINED BY VOTE! A vote is only to decide on a course of action.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 11:59:55 GMT -5
In these legal cases, a democratic vote decides whether I told the truth. No. In civil cases, the jury merely decides what action is to be taken. So what you are saying is that the jury doesn't determine whether slander is actually slander. Who decides, then? Can I just call what you said slander and it's true? |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 14, 2019 13:21:18 GMT -5
No I didn't. You made that up. And your link just goes to the top of the thread, not to a specific post. It would be of great help if you could actually cut and past the actual words you allege I wrote. Red Herring. You avoided the question entirely. Is it your view that Muhammad was a "child rapist" but that this was okay because of the society he lived in? YES OR NO?Please give a straight answer or admit that you have none. Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2019 16:51:40 GMT -5
Child rape is not okay. Why would you think it is?
Did anything happen in your life that made you think that raping children is okay?
But let's get back to your argument that the government cannot know whether anything is true.
How is law enforcement possible when government bureaucrats will inevitably prosecute only those people they don't like?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 14, 2019 19:56:32 GMT -5
Child rape is not okay. Why would you think it is? Did anything happen in your life that made you think that raping children is okay? I don't think that child rape is okay either. But I also don't think child rape is okay in any society in any time period. Do you agree? Funny, I don't remember saying that. Could you please cut and paste my exact words? Complex Question Fallacy. When did I say that "government bureaucrats will inevitably prosecute only those people they don't like"? Bob |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 11:49:51 GMT -5
Complex Question Fallacy. When did I say that "government bureaucrats will inevitably prosecute only those people they don't like"? Bob Are you actually claiming that Government Bureaucrats have NEVER used the laws to their own advantage? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 12:06:39 GMT -5
Child rape is not okay. Why would you think it is? Did anything happen in your life that made you think that raping children is okay? I don't think that child rape is okay either. But I also don't think child rape is okay in any society in any time period. Do you agree? Show me a single statement I made in support of child rape. A single one. Come on. Try me. |
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 12:10:34 GMT -5
Complex Question Fallacy. When did I say that "government bureaucrats will inevitably prosecute only those people they don't like"? Bob Are you actually claiming that Government Bureaucrats have NEVER used the laws to their own advantage?
Red Herring.
Are you trying to avoid answering my question? You didn't supply any evidence to support your claim that I said what you claim I said.
Hint. Don't bother looking for that quote. It doesn't exist. You made it up.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 12:12:32 GMT -5
I don't think that child rape is okay either. But I also don't think child rape is okay in any society in any time period. Do you agree? Show me a single statement I made in support of child rape. A single one. Come on. Try me.
Why don't you just answer the question then. Do you agree that child rape is not okay in any society in any time period?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2019 14:01:15 GMT -5
Come on, Bob. Show me your evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 15, 2019 14:40:55 GMT -5
Come on, Bob. Show me your evidence.
Evidence? For a question?
And it's such a simple question too:
Do you agree that child rape is not okay in any society in any time period?
Yes or no? What's your answer?
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 5:38:53 GMT -5
Come on, Bob. Show me your evidence. Evidence? For a question? I challenged you to find a single piece of evidence that I approve of child rape, which you keep implying with your questions. So far, you haven't been able to come up with jack, let alone shit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2019 5:39:40 GMT -5
By the way Bob, do you believe that child rape is wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmarks1 on Jun 16, 2019 10:20:30 GMT -5
By the way Bob, do you believe that child rape is wrong?
Yes. Of course. I believe that child rape is wrong in all circumstances, in all societies, and in any time period of history.
Do you agree?
Bob
|
|
