Print

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

[Bauglir]

I agree that it's only the relation that's problematic, but that's the thing. Only the mind can determine what the relation ought to be, because only a mind can have a concept of "ought". The body can't disagree, it can only fail to meet expectations; it's an object (an exceedingly important one, mind). I can't think of a justification for insisting that the mind should conflate what is with what ought be.

By this logic, if I have a delusion that my body must have wings, the problem is with my body, not in my head.

Well, yes, actually, I would agree with that, and would fully support you in your quest to obtain wings, however difficult that might be. Especially if the lack thereof was causing you severe mental distress and didn't seem to be interfering with your perception of reality. If you believe you do have wings, that's a different problem, but if you believe you ought to... well, who am I to say otherwise.

Your body has told you how it is, but you're free to define what ought be in whatever way seems best to you. I might argue over what is or is not a practical course of action, but I'm certainly not going to insist that you're wrong for wanting this. You wish nobody harm, and as far as the situation so far is concerned, are harming nobody in pursuit of your goal.

Ninja'd, apparently; gotta go for a bit but I'll read em when I get back.

EDIT: Couple of things I need to clarify, I suppose. First, "free to define" comes off a bit different from the intended meaning, but the idea of pairing that with "in whatever way seems best" was that while you might not have absolute control over what seems right to you, you are under no obligation to conform to another's ideas of what ought or ought not be the case.

Second, I should point out that while I do get where you're coming from with the arbitrary nature of it, and you have a good point, whether it's classified as a mental or physical disorder (or whatever else) tends to determine how treatments are designed. Possibly I'm a bit odd, but I prefer to change a body rather than a mind if it's at all possible.

[KaelGotDwarves]

For instance, If someone got up and said that the governor was worthless at their job and should pay for their lack of action while a crowd of people cheered... then someone takes it upon themselves to assassinate that person:

Would you blame the person that said they should pay?  (What if they only intended that they do community service?)
Is it hate speech?  (It's: communication that disparages [a person] on the basis of [other characteristic / their work performance])

Once again, that's for the law to decide if "In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group" qualifies.

I'm not about to spend my lovely evening nitpicking at a fusillade of theoretical internet exemplifications. I'm just going by the lawful definition here, brother. Which is amusing to me because I personally lean chaotic and libertarian.

[Andir]

For instance, If someone got up and said that the governor was worthless at their job and should pay for their lack of action while a crowd of people cheered... then someone takes it upon themselves to assassinate that person:

Would you blame the person that said they should pay?  (What if they only intended that they do community service?)
Is it hate speech?  (It's: communication that disparages [a person] on the basis of [other characteristic / their work performance])

Once again, that's for the law to decide if "In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group" qualifies.

I'm not about to spend my lovely evening nitpicking at a fusillade of theoretical internet exemplifications. I'm just going by the lawful definition here, brother. Which is amusing to me because I personally lean chaotic and libertarian.

I guess my point is: How can you ever hope to censor that?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I'm perfectly okay with censoring hate speech.

And who decides what's hate speech? The government? It's practically asking for the suppression of political freedoms in the name of "ending hate speech", when in reality whatever party is in power just wants to make sure that they stay that way. The people? Mob rule, no better than the government. The "people" (in the sense of a Communist state)? That's just the government again, but wearing your neighbors as a mask.

People. Hate. Other. People. That's just how it is. It would be nice if that wasn't how it was, but that doesn't make it untrue. Hate is an emotion like any other, and you won't get rid of it by pretending it doesn't exist and throwing anyone who disagrees in a jail cell. It's no less Orwellian to outlaw hate than it is to outlaw love.

You bring up the Rwandan Genocide, but when things like that are possible it's not because some lunatics got on a radio station and said that it should happen, it's because the nation itself is unstable. The media were just voicing a sentiment that already existed in Rwandan society, they didn't create it.

[Heron TSG]

Well, looks like the metaconversation about the thread is over, I'll just toss this back in for discussion, now that the 'Transgender: Disorder or Not' discussion has gotten to the point where I would have to do hours of research to make even one relevant statement

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I certainly see the need for additional heroines in video games, but also I wish that there was a bit more variety in heroes. I can't really relate at all to the stereotypical manhero. Then again, many action game heroes aren't pacifists.

[Truean]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Dow-plunges-more-than-634-apf-1960115615.html?x=0

All together now, "Shit!"

[KaelGotDwarves]

People. Hate. Other. People. That's just how it is. It would be nice if that wasn't how it was, but that doesn't make it untrue. Hate is an emotion like any other, and you won't get rid of it by pretending it doesn't exist and throwing anyone who disagrees in a jail cell. It's no less Orwellian to outlaw hate than it is to outlaw love.

This is about hate speech, not hate. So, okay.

And who decides what's hate speech? The government?

They already do.

Hate is an emotion. I'm not saying that you can censor hate. Hate speech is the act of inciting violence and further hate towards other a person or groups of people because of no actual fault of their own. You can deny a public forum to that.

How does irrational hate start in the first place? It is spread.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

People. Hate. Other. People. That's just how it is. It would be nice if that wasn't how it was, but that doesn't make it untrue. Hate is an emotion like any other, and you won't get rid of it by pretending it doesn't exist and throwing anyone who disagrees in a jail cell. It's no less Orwellian to outlaw hate than it is to outlaw love.

This is about hate speech, not hate. So, okay.

It is effectively the same thing, as hate speech is the expression of hatred.

And who decides what's hate speech? The government?

They already do.

And it is a horrible breach of freedom of speech, organized by a bunch of corrupt and outdated bureaucrats.

[Bauglir]

And it is a horrible breach of freedom of speech, organized by a bunch of corrupt and outdated bureaucrats.

I'm not actually sure why "outdated" is relevant, or even "corrupt", really. It seems more like shortsighted application of "I know it when I see it" logic than anything else, and the application, judging from my experience, tends to be erring on the side of caution.

[KaelGotDwarves]

People. Hate. Other. People. That's just how it is. It would be nice if that wasn't how it was, but that doesn't make it untrue. Hate is an emotion like any other, and you won't get rid of it by pretending it doesn't exist and throwing anyone who disagrees in a jail cell. It's no less Orwellian to outlaw hate than it is to outlaw love.

This is about hate speech, not hate. So, okay.

It is effectively the same thing, as hate speech is the expression of hatred.

You're simply wrong. There's an actual lawful definition for hate speech separate of voicing one's feelings, as posted earlier in this thread.

And it is a horrible breach of freedom of speech, organized by a bunch of corrupt and outdated bureaucrats.

Not really. What third world shithole do you live in where you have no voice?

[Vector]

It is unprotected speech in Germany to deny the Holocaust.  Publicly doing so nets you three years in jail.

Opinions?

[G-Flex]

Your body has told you how it is, but you're free to define what ought be in whatever way seems best to you.

This has nothing to do with "oughts". It has to do with what your brain has actually mapped your body as being composed like. Deciding that it would be nice to have wings, or that I ought to have wings, is vastly different from my brain thinking I do have wings, which is exactly what I'm talking about.

To reiterate, this has nothing to do with what people want. It has to do with the brain mapping itself to parts that aren't there, or aren't there in the form that the brain expects. It's like how amputees get phantom limb pains and stuff like that; it's nothing to do with "I should still have a leg" and more to do with "god dammit I REALLY FEEL LIKE A LEG SHOULD BE THERE".

To reiterate, again, this has nothing to do with personal choice or preference in any way, what we're talking about are very fundamental aspects of how the brain maps itself to different parts of your body. The hypothetical wing-person I'm talking about doesn't "choose" that he "should" have wings any more than you "choose" that you "should" have two feet with toes on them. You cannot just will away the brain's somatic mapping, or will new parts into it. It doesn't work that way, and has absolutely nothing to do with choice, "ought"s, or desires. It has nothing to do with the conscious mind at all, or even with the more cognitive aspects of the unconscious mind.

And who decides what's hate speech? The government? It's practically asking for the suppression of political freedoms in the name of "ending hate speech", when in reality whatever party is in power just wants to make sure that they stay that way.

You could just do it the way it's actually done in the US, and declare the limit to be anything that is a call to violence, or that actively incites violence. This seems to work well enough. I guess.

It is unprotected speech in Germany to deny the Holocaust.  Publicly doing so nets you three years in jail.

Opinions?

You know, I'm not even sure of this. On one hand, I think the nazi-related censorship in Germany is totally ridiculous, and that they'd be better off dealing with those problems head-on by being able to more freely discuss them. On the other hand, I can see why those laws might have been necessary in the past if nazism was still popular post-WWII. It's really hard for me to say because I don't know the culture, but the thing about rights is that they can't be absolute because sometimes they clash against other rights and priorities: If a society absolutely must forbid something like that in order to maintain order or because the alternative is worse, I suppose that, theoretically, it could be justified. However, I'm not sure that's the case anymore, or that it ever was.

[KaelGotDwarves]

It is unprotected speech in Germany to deny the Holocaust.  Publicly doing so nets you three years in jail.

Opinions?

I haven't hung around Germany enough to have a deeply educated opinion, but pragmatically I'd rather they go after those that still practice hate speech against Jews and other minorities rather than those that are Holocaust deniers.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

And it is a horrible breach of freedom of speech, organized by a bunch of corrupt and outdated bureaucrats.

Not really. What third world shithole do you live in where you have no voice?

It doesn't have to be the third-world for you to lose your freedoms. We must be forever vigilant of the governments of the free world, or it won't stay free. I see hate speech legislation for what it really is, a hole in people's civil liberties that can and will be exploited. When a government does anything, anything, you have to assume the worst of them because there are people out there who do want the worst for everyone.

It is unprotected speech in Germany to deny the Holocaust.  Publicly doing so nets you three years in jail.

Opinions?

It's wrong. To just "ban" something doesn't solve it, and makes the problem worse in both drugs and freedoms. Educate the neo-nazis away, don't arrest them.

[Africa]

It is unprotected speech in Germany to deny the Holocaust.  Publicly doing so nets you three years in jail.

Opinions?

I think that's wrong. The most important function of government is to protect the rights of the most vulnerable and most marginal members of society. This is a more important sub-category of protecting the rights of everybody, because everybody includes those whose money and influence mean they don't need protecting. This makes the government need to protect all kinds of people, whether they're the Jews or the Neo-Nazis. As long as all the Neo-Nazis are doing is talking and not actively inciting others to violence, then it is a crucial part of any government's job to protect their right to free speech. Failing it might seem morally attractive, but it's actually undermining the above most important function of government. Governments are there to guarantee rights are protected, not to remove distasteful things from public view.