Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
haha actually i wasn't pointing. i was quoting you minus what was obviously a typo. i think i've seen one time ever your english ever needed fixing!
You're too kind - I tend to make some egregious mistakes when I'm tired (e.g. now :D).
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, that's a fair call. especially if we're talking about me. in my defence though, for a portuguese naturale you type quite a lot of english to read :p
It's a skill we learn in school. The French taught us how to write :p
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
is this a long long paragraph with dead whitey referenced somewhere? goddamn it :mad:
:toothless
quote:
Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
well duh. i know you don't agree with it. im being intolerant of your tolerance for it! :tongue2
Hehe. To be honest, I'm sometimes very reluctant to defend their freedom of speech/action because it can lead to disastrous results (like those parents who don't vaccinate their children). I'm currently looking for an argument that would allow me to make the distinction between pernicious ideas that shouldn't be allowed because they put everyone in danger (even those who don't agree with them), such as the views held by vaccinutters, and ideas that shouldn't be allowed even though they claim to protect the community, such as witch hunters. It's not that simple... but maybe this is the one thing J.S. Mill overlooked.
Paradox Lost
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
I'm currently looking for an argument that would allow me to make the distinction between pernicious ideas that shouldn't be allowed because they put everyone in danger (even those who don't agree with them), such as the views held by vaccinutters, and ideas that shouldn't be allowed even though they claim to protect the community, such as witch hunters.
Originally posted by Lira
You're too kind - I tend to make some egregious mistakes when I'm tired (e.g. now :D).
It's a skill we learn in school. The French taught us how to write :p
:toothless
Hehe. To be honest, I'm sometimes very reluctant to defend their freedom of speech/action because it can lead to disastrous results (like those parents who don't vaccinate their children). I'm currently looking for an argument that would allow me to make the distinction between pernicious ideas that shouldn't be allowed because they put everyone in danger (even those who don't agree with them), such as the views held by vaccinutters, and ideas that shouldn't be allowed even though they claim to protect the community, such as witch hunters. It's not that simple... but maybe this is the one thing J.S. Mill overlooked.
Wouldn't Mill just say we needed to allow the voice of the vaccinutters, because what if they had been right?
Though it kind of falls into the laws we do have against freedom of speech when it comes to stuff like yelling, "Fire!" in a crowded area.
Joss Weatherby
People that think that ID is a good argument, or even an argument... LOL
Shoot yourselves.
EddieZilker
quote:
Originally posted by yukii
Anyone who believes in ID should watch this documentary. They completely pwn the people who decided to cross out the word 'creationism' and replace it with 'intelligent design' claiming it to be an actual science.
e- you can find it on netflix if you have an account.
It did... that's why I'm trying to develop a more "socially responsible" concept of tolerance.
quote:
Originally posted by Lews
Wouldn't Mill just say we needed to allow the voice of the vaccinutters, because what if they had been right?
Yes, the logical possibility that they're right is also a factor here, but not the only one:
But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. (Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion)
And I personally believe that's one of his best insights, although it needs some work.
Halcyon+On+On
I don't know, Lira. We don't need Westboro Baptist Church to tell us that homosexuality is wrong, just to know that cocks are all-right.
Desiderata
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.
lol
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by Desiderata
As far as possible, without surrender, be on good terms with all persons.
lol
I find that very hard to do because once you take this seriously, you'll see that you often have to make very difficult choices when "good terms" collide.
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
I don't know, Lira. We don't need Westboro Baptist Church to tell us that homosexuality is wrong, just to know that cocks are all-right.
Now, Westbores are very useful because they can either show us what's wrong with their interpretation of the Bible and help other believers avoid the same problem, or they can actually point out some internal inconsistency that ought to be corrected. However, and I can't stress this enough, this does not mean they're free to be abusive and organise morallies across the country picketing funerals and whatnot. That's hate speech, not a contribution to the "market of ideas".
Halcyon+On+On
quote:
Originally posted by Lira
morallies
Ha!
igottaknow
Lira what are your views on dubstep vaccinutters?
Lira
quote:
Originally posted by igottaknow
Lira what are your views on dubstep vaccinutters?
