I can only speak in the macro, (generic) on the issue.
Speaking of free speech, when given a choice it is better to choose words that communicate rather than to impress.
Macro, (generic) UBIQUITOUS final arbitrator may not make the cut.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I can only speak in the macro, (generic) on the issue.
It also lowers cholesterol while improving skin tone.
Freedom of speech is important because the irresponsible suppression of speech can be extremely is dangerous.
" suppression of speech can be extremely is dangerous." you need to express yourself in gooder grammar.
" You truly understand freedom of speech when you defend what you most despise"I hate this debate and love it at the same time. I view the 1st to be our first line of defense, but it can be a double edged beast of a sword. The word I mean. I support free speech, but there are some types of speech I'm not in favor of, so ... I am self limiting in my verbiage and the way I communicate. Gossip, for example: I walk away. I can't stand it. Either that or it goes right through. I can't stand it. Self control, I guess and personal choice is a choice, so yeah ...
Go free speech. We should have harsher penalties for libel and defamation of character, though.
Yup
Secularism leads to lack of self controlI hate this debate and love it at the same time. I view the 1st to be our first line of defense, but it can be a double edged beast of a sword. The word I mean. I support free speech, but there are some types of speech I'm not in favor of, so ... I am self limiting in my verbiage and the way I communicate. Gossip, for example: I walk away. I can't stand it. Either that or it goes right through. I can't stand it. Self control, I guess and personal choice is a choice, so yeah ...
Go free speech. We should have harsher penalties for libel and defamation of character, though.
Yup
Secularism leads to lack of self control
Secularism leads to lack of self control
Time is short, i will quote C.S.Lewis "When people stop believing in God, its not that they believe in nothing, they believe in anything"Evidence, reason and rationality please.
Time is short, i will quote C.S.Lewis "When people stop believing in God, its not that they believe in nothing, they believe in anything"
will return later, of course, i could get very NietzscheanThat is not evidence. That is someone saying something. Don't you understand the concept of evidence?
will return later, of course, i could get very Nietzschean
" You truly understand freedom of speech when you defend what you most despise"
see "amygdala hijack"How does anyone define 'hate speech' ?
Please do not confuse reason-invoking speech with reason-disabling speech. Reason-disabling speech will try to masquerade as reason-invoking speech. Do not let yourself become deceived by reason-disabling speech, especially if tries to cloak itself as reason-invoking speech.Government attempting to Ban hate speech would be capricious. 'hate speech' claims are just a new rhetorical methodology to curtail free speech.
Indeed, authoriarians (anti-freedom types) will use reason-disabling hate speech and lies in an effort to shut down free inquiry.A lie hates free inquiry and as a consequence totalitarians strive to suppress free inquiry, free speech and debate.
Agreed.I recall an exchange student raised in a dictatorship, China. This young woman openly stated ‘debate’ about government policies in her country was considered ‘disrespectful ‘ to authority. That is close to hate speech. I asked the young lady “Why in a democratic republic does anyone with any civil authority need to be ‘respected,’ exalted in any way more than anyone else?” I added the mere notion that ‘government’ knows whats best is something beyond my understanding of what the function of government is.
No programmed response. The authoritarian programming was in danger of being exposed for what it is, and made her feel uneasy.To my points the young lady had no rebuttal, rendered uneasy by the topic matter.
Agreed.Government is not the arbitrator of right or wrong, governments business is not correcting all societies ills. The simple fact is clear that discussion is monitored and debate is outlawed in totalitarian countries to protect totalitarian rule, there being no other reason debate is suppressed.
Agreed.When debate and discussion is quelled, a lie is empowered and ultimately exalted.
I disagree on this point. Pointing out reason-disabling hate speech for what it is gives the person a chance to recover from amygdala hijack, if they are not overcome by the uneasy feeling of the subconscious realization that their frontal lobes have been quelled.The suppression of discussion under so called 'hate speech' on any side of the spectrum is one of the signs your dealing with those of a totalitarian mindset.
Time is short, i will quote C.S.Lewis "When people stop believing in God, its not that they believe in nothing, they believe in anything"
see "amygdala hijack"
Amygdala Hijack: What It Is, Why It Happens & How to Make It Stop
Amygdala hijack happens when your brain reacts to psychological stress as if it's physical danger. Learn more here.www.healthline.comsnippet:The amygdala hijack occurs when your amygdala responds to stress and disables your frontal lobes. That activates the fight-or-flight response and disables rational, reasoned responses. In other words, the amygdala “hijacks” control of your brain and your responses.
Hate speech seeks to shut down reason via amygdala hijack.
Please do not confuse reason-invoking speech with reason-disabling speech. Reason-disabling speech will try to masquerade as reason-invoking speech. Do not let yourself become deceived by reason-disabling speech, especially if tries to cloak itself as reason-invoking speech.
Indeed, authoriarians (anti-freedom types) will use reason-disabling hate speech and lies in an effort to shut down free inquiry.
Agreed.
No programmed response. The authoritarian programming was in danger of being exposed for what it is, and made her feel uneasy.
Agreed.
Agreed.
I disagree on this point. Pointing out reason-disabling hate speech for what it is gives the person a chance to recover from amygdala hijack, if they are not overcome by the uneasy feeling of the subconscious realization that their frontal lobes have been quelled.
I think that most "hate speech" must be allowed, even if we don't like it. I think we have to stick with the long standing limits of speech which boil down to restricting speech only when it will immediately provoke violence.Hatred can overcome an individual's reasoning ability (amygdala hijack.) The effect (and possibly the indirect goal) of hate speech is shutting down individual reasoning, which is basically compelling rather than persuading.
It seems that has gone by the wayside by many. Compelling has become a favored tool of authoritarian (anti-freedom) types.
If free speech is to invoke reason, hate speech is contrary to free speech, as hate speech can overcome the individual's ability to reason (amygdala hijack.) Pointing out the differing and contrary effects of the free speech and hate speech does not constitute an emotional retreat. Rather, it is an invitation to observe the different effects for oneself, so one does not confuse hate-speech for free speech.
Freedom of speech and indoctrination are two connected but separate things.
That's a dangerous proposition.I think that most "hate speech" must be allowed, even if we don't like it. I think we have to stick with the long standing limits of speech which boil down to restricting speech only when it will immediately provoke violence.
With that said, can you give any specific examples of "hate speech" you think should be restricted?
FREE SPEECH (sic) is clearly not ubiquitous, and the reason that one cannot yell fire in the theater is precisely because the FIRST AMENDMENT (sic) is not the final arbitrator.