Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[DJ]

I've read that too, in a local daily newspaper.

[ed boy]

There may be a disconnect between our definitions. I'm referring to the same sort of "right" as people who declare that they have a right to do something, and therefore should be allowed to without any negative consequences. It's not the definition I tend to think in terms of, but it is the definition I tend to see associate with statements like the one I was responding to. I apologize if I was wrong about that.

That sounds about right (no pun intended).

Once again that : people can say whatever they want (as long at it is only an opinion) is purely American ; in most European country, there is such things as illegal opinion, such as racism, dangerous religious beliefs and a few other (the thing with electricity would be illegal I think). Personally, I think that while there is no objective truth, there is such things as objective bullshit. You don't have any right to say that black man are inferior, for instance ; that is pure, objective stupidity, and is rightly forbidden, in my opinion.

In the US, we emphasize individual rights more than order/the collective good/whatever.  Combine that with some fear (not entirely unjustified) of the whole "officially sanctioned opinion" notion and you get the difference.  Something like that.

Also, define objective stupidity and objective bullshit.  I have a hard time interpreting those as anything but subjective.  Far too many people use "objective" to mean "supremely rational, therefore superior to all other viewpoints, because I said so" (*cough*), which approaches No True Scotsman territory.

I would have to ask you to be very clear to differentiate between holding and opinion and acting upon it. It's perfectly legal to believe that jews are vermin; it is not legal to go out and hunt them down.

Furthermore, it is surprisingly easy to find people who give wildly different answers for what is an objective truth. There are many people who believe that if you do not follow the same god as them and pray the same way as them, you will go to hell. They regard this as a truth as blindingly obvious as 1+1=2. There are many people from many religions that believe this. Each of them is convinced that anyone trying to steer them from the "true god" is evil, and should not be allowed to do so, and similarly believe that they cannot stand by and let other people worship a god other than their own.

[Earthquake Damage]

I would have to ask you to be very clear to differentiate between holding and opinion and acting upon it. It's perfectly legal to believe that jews are vermin; it is not legal to go out and hunt them down.

No disagreement here.  I think that's where Bauglir and I were miscommunicating.  He meant the right to act (I think).  I meant the right to think.  And speak, though that's in a strange limbo between action and thought that depends on context.

Furthermore, it is surprisingly easy to find people who give wildly different answers for what is an objective truth.

I deliberately left out Phmcw's use of "objective truth" because I didn't feel like tackling that one.  It's a debate all by itself.  What is truth?  What is real?  Isn't my navel fascinating?

[Christes]

I wonder - if the aforementioned European governments could determine your thoughts, would they make it a crime to adore Hitler?

[Urist Imiknorris]

I wonder - if the aforementioned European governments could determine your thoughts, would they make it a crime to adore Hitler?

For his leadership capabilities and ability to rally his people, no. For his intentions, yes.

[Earthquake Damage]

I wonder - if the aforementioned European governments could determine your thoughts, would they make it a crime to adore Hitler?

For his leadership capabilities and ability to rally his people, no. For his intentions, yes.

I like to imagine Gandhi committing thoughtcrime (but never giving those thoughts voice, let alone acting on them) and being subsequently reviled as a monster.  Who's to say he wasn't secretly bigoted (or hotheaded, or envious, or whatever) despite being principled/disciplined enough to act otherwise?  The same goes for any respected historical figure, really.

[Phmcw]

I wonder - if the aforementioned European governments could determine your thoughts, would they make it a crime to adore Hitler?

Would you?

Anyway objective bullshit,  a few example : "Black people are inferiors" and "there has been no Jew genocide", are a few sentence who are considered bullshit and dangerous enough to be outlawed. There is too, it's ok to rape people, do it, hey kiddo, do drugs it's cool, and please kill that guys he's an enemy of...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I like to imagine Gandhi committing thoughtcrime (but never giving those thoughts voice, let alone acting on them) and being subsequently reviled as a monster.  Who's to say he wasn't secretly bigoted (or hotheaded, or envious, or whatever) despite being principled/disciplined enough to act otherwise?  The same goes for any respected historical figure, really.

I actually hear semi-regular accusations that Gandhi was a racist, but I've never bothered to investigate said claims.

[Urist McDepravity]

Anyway objective bullshit,  a few example : "Black people are inferiors" and "there has been no Jew genocide", are a few sentence who are considered bullshit and dangerous enough to be outlawed.

How do you know its 'objective'? Basically this is just forbidding actual science over very dubious ethical considerations. Same as anti-cloning bullshit.
This is no different from Islam fundamentalists or Christian inquisition - dogmas are unquestionable and heretics should be burned at stakes.

[Phmcw]

Anyway objective bullshit,  a few example : "Black people are inferiors" and "there has been no Jew genocide", are a few sentence who are considered bullshit and dangerous enough to be outlawed.

How do you know its 'objective'? Basically this is just forbidding actual science over very dubious ethical considerations. Same as anti-cloning bullshit.
This is no different from Islam fundamentalists or Christian inquisition - dogmas are unquestionable and heretics should be burned at stakes.

Well, for one you mostly risk a fee, and in extreme case community services. Nothing like being imprisoned or burned.
Second, well, we don't really need more evidence, does we? You are advocating letting dangerous and hateful movement spawn in the name of what? Freedom of speech? But freedom of speech is limited, like it or not. Go scream "long live Ben Laden, allah ak bhar" at one of Obama's meeting if you don't believe me.
Go tell a kid that drugs are ok. How is that different?

[Earthquake Damage]

I actually hear semi-regular accusations that Gandhi was a racist, but I've never bothered to investigate said claims.

I've never heard such a thing.  Even were it true, the man's legacy speaks for itself.

[Phmcw]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42402856

Anyway, a report on the condition that face the journalists that are in Tripoli, in Kadhafi's hotel.

[Urist McDepravity]

Second, well, we don't really need more evidence, does we?

Science does not work like that. Science means things we consider as facts may be checked and proved by anyone who wish to do so. Truth does not need to be set as law.
For example, our knowledge on human genome is quite limited now, and we slowly advance each year in it. As we gather more knowledge, we also get new ways and improve older ways of checking gene correlation with overall characteristics. One day, when genome would be fully understood, we could put an end to these racial questions, but for now each new discovery obsoletes old results, and we should have freedom to conduct researches on pure scientific basis, without fear for inability of society to accept research or results.

You are advocating letting dangerous and hateful movement spawn in the name of what? Freedom of speech?

More like, in the name of truth. Whether Holocaust happened or not, it cannot be both. Specific events occurred in specific way, and truth itself cannot be changed. The only thing that changes is our perception of it.
Sure, we can keep lying to ourselves and say that Sun rotates around Earth, but I don't think that such lies would do any good for humanity as a whole.

[Phmcw]

Interesting view, but as I said it's about objective BS : spreading racial hatred, calling them inferior and such. You won't get into trouble for searching cognitive difference, or rather, not with the law (However I doubt the scientific community would take it well

More like, in the name of truth. Whether Holocaust happened or not, it cannot be both. Specific events occurred in specific way, and truth itself cannot be changed. The only thing that changes is our perception of it. ).

Well, yes and it happened, no question, we have the bodies, the incinerators, the train schedule, pictures, movie and survivors.
There really is no question, saying otherwise is complete nonsense.

[Earthquake Damage]

objective BS

I still think you're misapplying the word "objective" here.