In Defense of Insulting People and Ideas...

[oldbadger]

I so agree with the OP.

People need to be capable of expressing how inclined they are to accept and respect other people and ideas. And that requires the option of being insulting.

If children did this, in their neighbourhoods and at school, would that be a suitable preparation for the adult world, possibly?

 

[icehorse]

Questions.......
Should European countries repeal their laws which ban debates, doubts and questions about the Holocaust?
Do you still support anti- harassment, incitement, discrimination, slander and libel laws?

Yes they should repeal those laws.

 

[icehorse]

there may be a misunderstanding. free speech allows us to insult others. however, speech which results in 'character defamation' (slander) is illegal in the US. this is actually the type of speech which is legally restricted. not merely insults.

Yes there are limits to free speech - but where it really counts is the ability to criticize and hear criticisms of ideas.

 

[icehorse]

When violent retaliation becomes a very real possibility. You don't put out fires by throwing oil on them.

Last night I listened to a Hitchens speech from about 8 years ago. At one point, in response to a "West basher" he said: "We do not create Jihad by resisting it."

 

[icehorse]

Insults are never right. Can I call you fat? would that not be an insult?

Insulting a horrible, destructive behavior or belief is absolutely correct.

 

[icehorse]

How about the *freedom to listen* end of this question?

It's often the case that hearing a solid criticism or a well executed bit of satire is the most efficient way to get a handle on a situation. I don't want to be denied my right to hear criticism.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes they should repeal those laws.

Hello.....
Actually, I agree with you.
Personally, I believe the evidence as written in statements and shown in various types of evidence in connection with that subject-matter, but to demand free-speech whilst banning free speech is a double standard, a hypocrisy, in my opinion.
And to argue that insults, ridicule, harassment and taunting is reasonable behaviour when we teach exactly the opposite in our schools, and ban such bullying in our clubs, societies and other establishments seems such utter double-think to me.
One huge crevasse in our society which (I believe) needs fixing.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

He or she has to religious to be a nutter do they? I thought it was politics that created all this fighting. Religion is about belief in God, is it not

No, it's not. But i agree with your basic sentiment. Violent action can be the consequence of various belief types, not just religion.

 

[LuisDantas]

If children did this, in their neighbourhoods and at school, would that be a suitable preparation for the adult world, possibly?

We should check that possibility up close, but I happen to think right now that it is probably needed to some degree.

It sure seems to be craved badly enough...

 

[Revoltingest]

Insulting a horrible, destructive behavior or belief is absolutely correct.

So I should insult socialists for their their want to oppress people? Believers should insult me for keeping the 10 Commandments out of public buildings? Should I insult Luis for his gun grabbing philosophy? You see the problem.....there are differences of opinion about just what is destructive. So we are all to insult each other when we disagree?

 

[icehorse]

So I should insult socialists for their their want to oppress people? Believers should insult me for keeping the 10 Commandments out of public buildings? Should I insult Luis for his gun grabbing philosophy? You see the problem.....there are differences of opinion about just what is destructive. So we are all to insult each other when we disagree?

And who will be the judge of what is an insult?

 

[LuisDantas]

So I should insult socialists for their their want to oppress people?

What, you think you are somehow doing better than that? Even as you describe socialism as "oppression" you are failing to, right there.

Believers should insult me for keeping the 10 Commandments out of public buildings?

They should have a clear reason not to, don't you agree? Repressing their beliefs just because is no solution.

Should I insult Luis for his gun grabbing philosophy?

Is that still in doubt? I think I misunderstood some past exchanges then.

You see the problem.....there are differences of opinion about just what is destructive. So we are all to insult each other when we disagree?

If our feelings are strong enough to sustain insulting in the first place?

I don't know that any of us have much in the way of a choice, at least in a first exchange.

 

[LuisDantas]

perhaps you have nothing to say

I am learning not to waste many words with you.

 

[LuisDantas]

This post seems to argue that you're an automaton, inexorably acting out whims & passions, with no ability to consciously limit abusive speech.

Does it? I have no idea why.

 

[Revoltingest]

And who will be the judge of what is an insult?

There would be the insulter & the insultee.

 

[LuisDantas]

But I am correct. And you refuse to accept that I'm right, even after I've pointed it out to you. By your own reasoning, you are lying. (Of course, by my use of the word, you aren't lying.)

Again, it is not my fault that you insist on misrepresentation.

 

[Revoltingest]

What, you think you are somehow doing better than that? Even as you describe socialism as "oppression" you are failing to, right there.

But I'm right, & their values are destructive. So I should insult them, according to the rationale under discussion.

They should have a clear reason not to, don't you agree? Repressing their beliefs just because is no solution.

Under the separation of church & state doctrine (constitutional law), there is good reason to keep them out. I don't see keeping religion out of public buildings as repressing them. But since they disagree, some are saying they should insult me for my "destructive" views.

If our feelings are strong enough to sustain insulting in the first place?
I don't know that any of us have much in the way of a choice, at least in a first exchange.

Of course there's a choice about whether to insult or not. Tis just as to hit one's spouse is a choice....a bad one. Or should we tell them, "Hey you couldn't stop yourself....it's not your fault. He/she had it coming."?

 

[Revoltingest]

Again, it is not my fault that you insist on misrepresentation.

But it is your fault for failing to accept what I say as the truth, particularly when I inform you multiple times. That's your dishonesty. That requires an insult.

Note: The above is a reductio ad absurdum ploy.

 

[LuisDantas]

But I'm right, & their values are destructive. So I should insult them, according to the rationale under discussion.

Well, actually yes. If you do think of what you said about socialism as "right", it is best - or even all-out indispensable - to state so clearly, lest we all waste a lot of time trying to second-guess each other to no avail.

Whether that even counts as an insult or it is rather a confession of prejudice and ignorance can be determined later, I think.

Under the separation of church & state doctrine (constitutional law), there is good reason to keep them out.

Why would that even matter? Are you taking for granted that theists will think of Constitution as determinant over their beliefs?

That seems a bit reckless to me.

I don't see keeping religion out of public buildings as repressing them.

Then why would they even object?

But since they disagree, some are saying they should insult me for my "destructive" views.

Do you see a better course of action? Which would it be?

Of course there's a choice about whether to insult or not. Tis just as to hit one's spouse is a choice....a bad one. Or should we tell them, "Hey you couldn't stop yourself....it's not your fault. He/she had it coming."?

Should I defer to your expertise on spouse-beating, or just declare that you are talking weirdness? Your choice.

 

[LuisDantas]

But it is your fault for failing to accept what I say as the truth, particularly when I inform you multiple times. That's your dishonesty. That requires an insult.

Note: The above is a reductio ad absurdum ploy.

If you want to be all formal about this, here it is: I am not taking what you say seriously, mainly because you make it so obvious that it would be a mistake to attempt to.

Now, would you have something with more content to say?