Non-crime hate incidents - yet another not-at-all-Orwellian reality

[Sargonski]

Yeah, I guess it was completely lost on me. A single sentence is all I needed to show my absurdity.



Is "the collective" synonymous with "a particular group of people"?

I am sure there must be some people who would disagree with your last sentence.

anyone can disagree with anything friend but, disagreement in of itself is not a valid argument.

In utilitarianism - The collective is "everyone in general in the society in which one lives. .. you could substitute the word society for collective. Utilitarianism is a justification for law based solely on what will increase happiness for society/ reduce harm in society.

So-- Erosion of rights -- is a societal justification for law. If something erodes "Rights" .. this is negative to society and thus law against that something is justified.

As with all utilitarian justifications they sound good on th surface. For example - "If it saves one life" - "Harm Reduction" as justification for law ! How could anyone be against such a thing --- "YOU Want to Save A life Don't YOU ?

I am sure some people will agree right ? - hence validating the appeal to popularity fallacy.

What's the problem here ? because the one's arguing that - "if it saves one life" is valid justification for law in a constitutional republic are wrong. Correct if one is living in Fascist collectivist totalitarianism .. of the Orwellian variety and full circle we have arrives at the topic.

Now over to you .. What is the problem with above utilitarian justification for law - in a constitutional republic ? What is the problem with this wonderful sounding argument you hear every day have accepted as valid - likely most of the time if not all of the time .. cause "You want to save a life don't you" ???!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Everyone knows that we need more government
control over our interactions, speech, & acts.
How else can we be as safe & secure as people
in China are? Look how orderly their society is.

The USSR in it's height of glory, had among the world's cleanest streets and the world's lowest crime thanks to the endeavors of the government.

 

[Revoltingest]

No .. It means the person who is offended gets to decide.

They decide if they're offended.
Others decide how the offense is handled.

 

[Revoltingest]

The USSR in it's height of glory, had among the world's cleanest streets and the world's lowest crime thanks to the endeavors of the government.

Crime stats are most attractive when
they don't include crimes by government.

 

[Valjean]

No .. It means the person who is offended gets to decide.

One of the main problems with Utilitarianism --- justification for law based solely on "increasing happiness for the collective" - is - who gets to decide what will increase happiness for the collective - one man's poison is another man's pleasure.

The poster suggested that the person who is offended gets to decide what is offensive and what is not.

But that doesn't work, does it? Shouldn't what is best for the collective be decided by the collective; an informed collective?

 

[Valjean]

The question is whether or not this is valid justification for law. Should someone be put in Jail for calling a painting by your struggling artist son - "looks like it was painted by a child" .. the intent obviously to denegrate, anger, belittle.

What should the police do upon receiving the complaint from your son ?

They should point out the truth of the observation.

I don't support mandated politeness.
If "painted by a child" is truth, let it be published.

 

[Valjean]

They should point out the truth of the observation, and tell you to stop being such a snowflake.

I don't support mandated politeness.
If "painted by a child" is truth, let it be published.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

anyone can disagree with anything friend but, disagreement in of itself is not a valid argument.

I agree! I was referring to the fact that there are people who've had their rights eroded regardless of what you've stated. They would disagree. For instance, imagine being transgender: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-rele...warns-lgbt-rights-being-eroded-urges-stronger

Or female: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)30990-0/fulltext

In utilitarianism - The collective is "everyone in general in the society in which one lives. .. you could substitute the word society for collective. Utilitarianism is a justification for law based solely on what will increase happiness for society/ reduce harm in society.

This doesn't answer the question 'Is "the collective" synonymous with "a particular group of people"?' "Everyone is general" is usually considered not the same as "a particular group of people."

So-- Erosion of rights -- is a societal justification for law. If something erodes "Rights" .. this is negative to society and thus law against that something is justified.

In the USA, we have a document that guides legislation called the Constitution that has a list of rights that should not be eroded.

As with all utilitarian justifications they sound good on th surface. For example - "If it saves one life" - "Harm Reduction" as justification for law ! How could anyone be against such a thing --- "YOU Want to Save A life Don't YOU ?

I am sure some people will agree right ? - hence validating the appeal to popularity fallacy.

What's the problem here ? because the one's arguing that - "if it saves one life" is valid justification for law in a constitutional republic are wrong. Correct if one is living in Fascist collectivist totalitarianism .. of the Orwellian variety and full circle we have arrives at the topic.

The problem here is that you are forging ahead on the idea of "collectivism" without addressing whether I am making a collective argument or even whether the basis of the Constitution that guides our laws could also count as your version of a collectivist, populist fallacy.

Now over to you .. What is the problem with above utilitarian justification for law - in a constitutional republic ? What is the problem with this wonderful sounding argument you hear every day have accepted as valid - likely most of the time if not all of the time .. cause "You want to save a life don't you" ???!

I do want to save a life! I also want to live in a Constitutional Republic based on the ethos of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all citizens. You do want that, don't you?

 

[icehorse]

This is your OP but you decide to champion in favor of free speech through the entire thread. I don't really understand your position...

Let me elaborate: You are opposed to this system they have in the UK where the government provides a public platform to the citizens so they can freely speak their minds about someone else without much interference. This is free speech. How come you criticize a system that revolves around free speech and yet spend the rest of the thread defending free speech?

You've misunderstood NCHIs. This is NOT a public platform for speaking one's mind. That would be fine.

This is a policy that allows citizens to snitch on each other without going public and with no need for evidence. So if we lived in the UK, I could go to the police and make up any old crap about you, no evidence needed, and the police will accept my report and it will go on your permanent record.

 

[icehorse]

You say that but it's been shown that isn't the case.
Where else have we seen you display such behaviors?

And you often bleat "you've been told" or "you've been shown" as if somehow the debate is over, ha!

 

[Koldo]

You've misunderstood NCHIs. This is NOT a public platform for speaking one's mind. That would be fine.

This is a policy that allows citizens to snitch on each other without going public and with no need for evidence. So if we lived in the UK, I could go to the police and make up any old crap about you, no evidence needed, and the police will accept my report and it will go on your permanent record.

But free speech doesn't require any evidence whatsoever. What are you talking about?

 

[icehorse]

But free speech doesn't require any evidence whatsoever. What are you talking about?

This thread is about non crime hate incidents (NCHIs). Did you read the OP?

NCHIs create a "chilling effect" on free speech. If citizen A wants to talk publicly about a controversial topic, the existence of NCHI reports are a threat to such speech. Because if citizen B disagrees, they can - in secret - file a NCHI report against citizen A. Citizen B can - in effect - rat out citizen A. And no evidence is required.

 

[Revoltingest]

The USSR in it's height of glory, had among the world's cleanest streets and the world's lowest crime thanks to the endeavors of the government.

Grocery store shelves were
particularly neat & organized.

 

[Koldo]

This thread is about non crime hate incidents (NCHIs). Did you read the OP?

Yes.

NCHIs create a "chilling effect" on free speech. If citizen A wants to talk publicly about a controversial topic, the existence of NCHI reports are a threat to such speech.

How? How is it a threat?

Because if citizen B disagrees, they can - in secret - file a NCHI report against citizen A. Citizen B can - in effect - rat out citizen A. And no evidence is required.

As a rule, it is not done in secrecy.
And once again, evidence has zilch to do with free speech.

 

[icehorse]

As a rule, it is not done in secrecy.
And once again, evidence has zilch to do with free speech.

I don't have stats on what percentage of the 200,000 NCHIs were done in secret, do you? But regardless, they CAN be done in secret. If you have one filed against you, you might never know. And years later a prospective employer could tell you that you didn't get a job because you had a NCHI filed against you.

As for the relationship between evidence and free speech...

Do you agree that there is such a thing as a chilling effect? For example, in Germany in 1942, it would be a bad idea to go to the street corner and start making a speech about how bad Hitler was. The threat of repercussions was a way to "chill" free speech.

So far, so good?

 

[Koldo]

I don't have stats on what percentage of the 200,000 NCHIs were done in secret, do you?

No.

But regardless, they CAN be done in secret.

As an exception.

If you have one filed against you, you might never know. And years later a prospective employer could tell you that you didn't get a job because you had a NCHI filed against you.

Even if not done in secret, that still applies. Do you oppose people being able to send a message to someone's prospective employers? If so, you oppose free speech.

As for the relationship between evidence and free speech...

Do you agree that there is such a thing as a chilling effect? For example, in Germany in 1942, it would be a bad idea to go to the street corner and start making a speech about how bad Hitler was. The threat of repercussions was a way to "chill" free speech.

So far, so good?

It is important to separate legal consequences from social consequences. Free speech never meant being free from social repercurssions.

 

[icehorse]

As an exception.

As I understand it, NCHIs are usually filed without the knowledge of the "offender"/

Even if not done in secret, that still applies. Do you oppose people being able to send a message to someone's prospective employers? If so, you oppose free speech.

It's one thing for an employer to receive some random warning from out of the blue. It's quite another for an employer to check with the police and learn that an official record exists.

It is important to separate legal consequences from social consequences. Free speech never meant being free from social repercurssions.

BINGO !

The NCHI allows random citizens to make other citizen's speech a legal issue. That's the issue!

Of course I understand and agree that free speech can have social repercussions.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And you often bleat "you've been told" or "you've been shown" as if somehow the debate is over, ha!

It's because you have been shown it doesn't work as you claim. That should rightfully end it.

 

[icehorse]

It's because you have been shown it doesn't work as you claim. That should rightfully end it.

Haha, sorry, that's just not true. Often when "I'm told" or "I'm shown" something by other posters, their logic simply does NOT hold up to scrutiny.

And typically - as is the case now - when I offer to walk thru an exchange slowly and carefully, my offer is refused. I think that's a sign that the other poster knows deep down that their argument is weak.

 

[Sargonski]

I do want to save a life! I also want to live in a Constitutional Republic based on the ethos of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all citizens. You do want that, don't you?

I missed this painful admission .. as predicted .. going through life beliving the lie .. that fallacious utilitarianism is a valid argument.

So OK .. Let us have it your way .. "if it saves one life" -- in Guitar Legal land -- is valid justification for law

Guess we better ban skiing aye mate -- how many lives we gonna save ! -- What about Boating ... talk about dangerous .. one could drown.
Driving a Car .. No way .. one of the most dangerous things you can do .. and ya know might as well not get out of bed in the morning as one might fall down the stairs and break neck ... Forget walking .. did you not know that activity is 400 time's more risk of harm than a terrorist attack.

Its completely arbitrary - every Judge rendering different opinion -- a complete mess

But, the big problem .. is that this justification for law does an end run around the safeguards put in place to protect Individual liberty .. they are not considered at all in the equation .. which is an anathema to the definition of Constitutional republic .. Since you don't know what this means I will "Splain it" to ya.

Thats when you have certain rights and freedoms known as "Essential Liberty" that is ABOVE - the legitimate authority of Gov't. KK -- U Understand now ? Gov't has ZERO legitimate authority to make law messing Essential liberty in a Constitutional Republic "BY Definition"

K .. but Utilitarianism justification for law completely avoids this complication by not considering the rights of the individual in the equation. in the process giving Gov't Unlimited power.


So lets ask you a simple question .. are you for or against limitations to Gov't power ?