"One reason we have a lot of foreign policy "issues" today is because of times in the past where we chose *not* to defend our properties/assets in other countries when those properties were taken over in changes of leadership in those nations."
This is SO arrogant, it almost defies imagination. It's exactly this sort of crap that makes me puke and think about the USA as some dangerously arrogant and self-centered behemot that not only walses over sovereign states and international law, but even thinks, nay, is convinced they have the RIGHT to do so.
I can't believe you actually say it as it's a given and that it's only normal. Are you THAT daft and blindly arrogant?
The USA does NOT have the right to invade countries because their corporations have 'invested' (more correctly; exploited people and resources) in foreign countries. In fact, many of this things are not even of the USA, though they like to think they can claim it. I bet you think the oil in Iraq is of the US too, because some american oilcompagnies got contracts?
Get real.
What you are advocating is, no more or less, imperialism.
Tell you what: you just keep trying to do that; consider all resources of the world to be yours, and try to withold the rights of the indiginous people to THEIR rescources and right to decide themselves what they want to do with it... see how far that will get you.
We must have completely different standards of what is proper behaviour, then. I suppose you will tell me that his behaviour on the golfcourse was fully normal too, and a shallow joke was just the thing needed to get morale up.
Aparently, excuses can always be found, and it seems it's all in the eye of the beholder. Whatever Moore showed, your bias will change it in something palatable, no doubt. Let me guess: the WMD WERE found, because they found some decade-old granate with a detoriated gas inside burried in the sand somewhere? Or no, WMD were never the real reason to go to war! (Though everyone objective can easily see it was the main argument used at the time, if only because they knew making iraq into an imminent thread for the USA was going to rally enough public support). Or was it because iraq had links to the regime...o, wait, they don't. Though a BBC-documentary showed clearly that Soedan is actively supporting terroristcamps; but hey, that didn't merrit an invasion; iraq was more interesting.
"The Bin Laden family is very large and are not hostile to the US in any way, Osama being the only exception."
False. First of all, your argument why saudi's could be flown off, while all the rest was grounded is spurious. As if the saudi's were the only group posible that should not fear a terrorist attack. Ah, well, you may have a point, and one can only wonder why?
But following your reasoning, they had nothing to do with it, so it seems strange you preclude only them. What? ALL the rest was prone to attacks, accept them? What a strange claim. And if not, it clearly demonstrates the weirdness that they were exempted while none else was, apparently based on their cosy tit-for-tat friendship with bush.
And that they were going to be targeted as reparation is a mere excuse. I mean what, you think the USA is a banana-republic where mobs can linch people hold for interrogation, just like that? You think it's impossible to get the familymembers to an unknown to the public, secure location?
And secondly, as another poster already made aparent: many of the saudi's had, at least financially, supported bin laden, at least up to the 9/11 attack (and even afterwards he still had connections with some family members). And you don't think that warrants even the slightest interrogation? And even worse; at least two of the saudi's that were flown away were ALREADY under investigation by the FBI for terrorist involvement.
But you find that all very reasonable, and a correct way of handling? It's all 'irrelevant'? Geez.
"It would have made no sense whatsoever to interrupt his storytelling with children simply because something had happened in New York."
'Something'? Dude, it was not about a car-accident we're talking about here. They didn't say to Bush 'something is happening'. One of the first things Bush heard was 'America is under attack'...and you SERIOUSLY content that just sitting there and not reacting at all for 7 minutes is not only the right, but even an aplaudable 'action'? Are you really that daft? You don't think asking for more information would be a more proper reaction? You don't think that moving into a more secure envirronment, when a head of state clearly could be targeted too, was a more sane thing to do? You really have weird standards for what constitutes an intelligent reaction.
All your argumentation is silly anyhow, because ultimately, he DID interrupt the reading (when other, more intelligent people made it clear it was unwise to stay there), albeit after sitting there for 7 minutes. If your argumentation were true, and it was so wise to go on, why didn't he go on untill his PR-tour actually finished? None of your so-called arguments (if one were to accept their validity) change after 7 minutes, now, do they?
Bushsupporter or not, you did avoid all the other remarks made by the original poster.
Do you think flewing off the saudis, including family-members of bin laden, when all planes could not leave is just a BFD-class molehill too?
Do you think his reaction on the golfterrain was only normal too?
I, for one, do not think that it's a normal reaction of a president, hearing that his country is under attack, to just keep reading and continuing his PR-tour. As others have said: it's not about giving a press-conference on the spot, but it IS about knowing your priorities, cutting short trivial (in comparison) things like the PR-profiling and normal routine, and trying to get more information and holding a staff meeting, or something. THAT is what I would expect a president to do, and it has nothing to do with hindsight.
And the same with most other things that were shown of bush (and his reactions): it is NOT normal or a BFD-class molehill; M.Moore just made it plain obvious Bush was and is a complete idiot without any real character, that puts self-interest before anything else.
"If you began with GPL code, all code that was added is automatically GPL, including any code you wrote yourself."
That is bullocks. An author ALWAYS has (and remains) copyright of hiw own work. He can decide to bring it out under whatever licence he choses, including dual (or more) licences. If he makes his licence available under GPL AND a proprietary licence, he can do so.
The only thing he can't do, is using other peoples' patches that were provided to him under the GPL-licence and use that in his proprietary licence-sheme.
If he removed all those patches and wrote them from scratch himself (or got the permission of the authors), he could and can easily sell his product as a proprietary tool (too). The GPL'ed version would remain under the GPL, however.
I doubt your first argument is true. The words that were considered abhorent misuses of language in the past weren't stopped, apparently, by the witholding of approval.
Ofcourse, it's difficult to say the succes rate of such a thing, because words that would be stopped in that way aren't around to be counted anymore, obviously.
But at any rate, it's fair to say that witholding approval isn't that effective, otherwise a whole lot more of formerly wrong words would not have made it.
What is far more detrimental, is the widespread use of the word, and in that option, speaking of 'virii', even in a negative way, contributes to this.
You other example eludes me (as an argument). Of course when you use a word only locally, it won't get mainstream, that's a given in the 'duh' area. and probably other people would noot get the inside joke...but, what? Do you think all words that started as insidejokes and got mainstream are now still recognised as insidejokes?
I really fail to see your argument with this. If 'Interweb' was widely used, and people understood what was meant by it, then, yes, it could become a regular 'real' word too. So what's your point?
As for your last paragraph, it's true that in some sense, evryone has an influence...but let's face it, it's more like saying 'I influence the weather'. Everyone influences the weather in some small part, and maybe even in a big way, as demonstrated by the chaos-theory, but oàne can't really direct it, and one can't really know the measure of influence, so the point is rather accademical.
As for your less then dignitory feelings and remarks about users of the word 'virii', that's just it: it spread well beyond the mere use of the so-called 'losers'. It's true it's still not mainstream, but it's equally true it has left its roots of scriptkiddies and leet-speaking geeks behind.
But, even if you were right, it doesn't make of a consistent argument against it. Do you have any idea, how many words have roots in the subburbs, subcultures by hoi palloi that couldn't speak a proper sentence and were, back then, considered far worse then mere geeky losers?
Yet, those words today are mainstream, and often lack the degenatory context it once had. So, while you may think it's a sign of losers and idiots today, within ten years it can be easily considered the standard word for computerviruses, and nobody in the future may see it in the negative image of 'losers' anymore, just as we don't see many words in a negative light anymore, even when they did, back when they started.
All by all, there is no logical argument given as yet, why it would or should be impossible, to incorporate virii in the mainstream language, once it is used widely and people understand what is meant by it. History shows us that the first has happend many times, and for the second it would mean you couldn't use a LOT of words if you wan't to remain consistent with your own viewpoint.
"Virtually everyone who uses the word "virii" uses it because they misapplied the radius -> radii rule."
No, they don't. Maybe it started that way, but most now either are well aware it's not correct 'latin', or they don't know nor care about the classical rule.
What, you think the poster that used virii here unknowingly 'missapplied' a latin rule for making it plural? I don't think so. I bet he was well aware of the issues surrounding the word.
And maybe you are not aware of it, but english (and allmost all other languages) are stuffed with verbs and other words which, at one time, were considered abhorent and totally wrong too. So it's not like this is the one ultimate exeption. Yet, you all use these words without any problems, mostly not even aware that they were considered a linguistic horror in the past.
And ofcourse you can try to stop it.
But that's like trying to stop people from going to 'the passion of Christ'; the more you tell people it's disgusting and shouldn't be watched, the more people go and watch. You are, in this respect, in a natural disadvantage: the more people talk about 'virii', even in a context of not wanting to accept the use of it, the more it *is* used, and the more likely it becomes that it will become mainstream.
This *always* happens on slashdot when 'virii' is mentionned. It's worth noting, however, that the protests when encountering the word 'virii' are getting less frequent and not as fast as they used to be. A tell-tale sign that, even here, it's slowly becoming accepted. After all, immer more artcles and posts make use of it, outside the pure scriptkiddie/leet speaking populace. Let's face it: it's getting commonly used and well on it's way to some day reach dictionary status. But in the meantime, you always will have those that opose it.
A whole bunch of "It's latin", "no, it's not", "it's slang", "no it's not" posts will pop-up like mushrooms.
While I agree that it's not correct latin, and I understand that some people have difficulties with the 'correctness' of it, it really doesn't matter one bit as to the validity of a word.
1)Language 'lives'; it changes with the passing of time.
2)Slang is not 'inferior' or 'wrong'; it are just words that are used in a subculture.
3)Words of a subculture can and have become 'mainstream'
4)In the past, english (as many other languages) has been 'corrupted' with equally 'wrong' words...yet we use them today as if they always have been correct, mostly not even being aware that once they were considered stupid, wrong, grammatically incorrect, foreign, nonsensical, inferior, ridiculous, the result of laziness, plain misspelled, etc.
Yet they are *all* considered mainstream english now! So, let's face it, there is *no* objective mechanism where you can say; this word has no place in our language or not.
If it's understood and used in this language, then ipso facto, it *IS* part of that language.
Now, anyone understands what is meant by 'virii' and more and more people/posts use the term virii, with purpose, even beyond their 1337 roots.
So it really is silly to fulminate that virii is not a word; it is used as one, it is understood as one, and it even has left it's pure sub-culture 1337 roots behind so that now it's actually becoming slowly mainstream. So what, in a year or 5, it may end up in the dictionary, as so many 'non-existent' words before it...and what will be the the contra-argument then?
Why, in another 20 years most persons won't even know anymore that it was once considered as 'non-existent' or 'wrong'. They will use it, as we use all those other words where people fulminated against, just as with they will with new, totally wrong words that will pop-up. That's what it means when we say a language lives, after all.
"I'm under the impression both of us think the other one doesn't get the points he's trying to get across, so I'll leave it at this."
True, true. Well...I think we might have an idea what each of us wants to say, only we seem to speak aside eachother when debating the issue.
Luckily, *we* have freedom of expression!;-)
"Good luck with your blog."
Thanks. Feel free to check it out once in a while. I plan on placing some stuff there relating to software patents too; a subject we both take an interest in, if I'm not mistaken.
"Sorry dude, but now you are plain lying. I nowhere said that the human rights as found in the UDHR were universally applied in history."
errrm...: "It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally" (dixit you)
If they apply in all situations, they also apply in situations in the past, hence, history. It seems a bit bold to claim I'm lying then, when one could very reasonably deduce you meant just that; in ALL situations, passed or present.
Anyway, we're back to square one, it seems.
I understand by your last post you definately agree that the UDHR is only an opinion too. Yes, yes, by a lot of experts in different countries and all that, but still an opinion, right? So, if others (in idem way) would decide something else is a human basic right, then what?
I gather you wouldn't accept that, because in that case, it wouldn't be a human right...but acording to whome, then, if the majority of the world populace would agree it *is*? According to you.
Thus, you deem your opinion of more importance then the opinion of those people, which would claim, for instance, anti-hate speech should be illegal. You could claim that because it would be not in the line of what a basic human right should be (dignity and peace and all that)...but again, according to whome?
Again; you. (and the experts and what not of THIS timeframe, but these wouldn't be there, in the hypothetical case).
Basically, it DOES amount to your opinion being more worth then that of another, when you put it that way.
Since we both agreed one opion isn't worth then another, this poses a problem in the view you portray. (hence the possibility for hypocrisy which you claim does not exist).
Now, you can, again, claim that societies don't work that way and what not, but you can not deny that there is something wrong with the reasoning, in that case.
Basically, what you are saying is; I accept the authority of the UDHR, as long as I agree with the opinions/reasons/goals of those who made it. Well, that's hardly surprising, and it amounts to just saying that you'll accept an opinion you agree with, but not with one you disagree with.
I have been trying to convey this a thousand times, and I still don't know for sure: do you agree with that, or not?
I somehow feel, maybe not justified (?), that you try to avoid the examination of the reasoning you gave. You keep saying that societies don't work that way, and that they are irratic and illogical, but frankly, I don't give a rats' ass about that. It's irrelevant to the question whether or not your reasoning is valid, because if society can be irratic and is justified in doing so when deciding 'hate speech' should be forbidden, it can be irratic and decide 'anti-hate speech' should be forbidden too. Period.
There is NO justification for bringing societies irratic behaviour in it, since, if you accept it can be irratic, then it doesn't have to follow logic, and thus it can be used to justify anything that is illogical. Therefor, if you accept the irratic and illogical behaviour/laws/etc. because it's in the nature of societies, then you should also accept their irratic and illogical behaviour/laws/etc. when they do something that you don't agree with, including anti-hate speech.
The whole extra argument of UDHR is just pushing it a bit further away, but not really solving anything. You no longer speak of societies, but of 'basic rights'. Well, if those basic rights are opinions - and whether they are agreed on by thousands of experts or not, it still remain opinions - then they do not have more sway then other opinions.
Sure, they are argumented, and probably pretty consistent...but it all depends on what someone considers to be human rights in the first place, right? Using the word 'psychopaths' does not solve this neither; nazi's wouldn't consider themselves to be psychopaths and in a more benign form, I do not agree with (some inte
I put it on the blog at http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/
I only slightly modified it, mainly spellingmistakes-corrections, but if you feel I didn't do a good job of representing both our posts correctly, feel free to indicate what should be changed.
"You are the one that keeps saying that the only way to justify it is that it's a majority opinion, not me."
No, I don't and didn't. What I have been saying is, that, if you accept that a majority justifies laws against hate-speech, it justifies laws against anti-hate speech too.
"It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally"
Indeed, and that's my point exactly: they do not show that. Slavery, for instance, was a very common accepted practise, at one time. Yet, in the current timeframe, it would be considered fundamental against human basic rights.
"There is logic and rationality behind it (disrespect for the human rights they mention has resulted in great tragedies, while respect for them hasn't -> it seems logical to demand..."
If you are of the opinion that something is a tragedy. I doubt the nazi's would have found it a tragedy if all jews were killed in concentrationcamps.
Now, while you claimed consistency does not make a law/policy stronger, I claim it does. It doesn't make it 'better', because that means giving it a subjective value, and that depends on one's views.
Therefor, a reasoning that has consistency, even if one does not agree with, is stronger then the same kind of reasoning without it. I think this is always true: I can't think of any reasoning that gets stronger when it has more internal contradictions in it.
Thus, consistency DOES make an argument stronger, though it doesn't give us 'good' (in the sense of ethical) reasonings. But what, then, can one use for ethical guidelines? IMHO, (I was gonna say that in my blog, but...seems difficult not to be further drawn into this discussion) it is, again, logic that can lead us to it.
A basic principle of Kants' philosophy, was that you shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you. It is as simple as elegant in it's logic and almost undisputable as a good ethical guideline, and that's why I think, personally, that allmost all basic rights in the UDHR are 'good'. Contrary to you, however, I'm still well aware that, ultimately, this is an opinion. Somebody can perfectly be of the opinion that killing blacks because of their color of skin is not against a basic human right, because -again in his opinion - niggers are sub-human, and thus, fall outside the scope of human basic rights. You see how easily it is to make a case like that if opinions differ, regardless of the so-called universal application that you claim can be found in history. (If anything, history shows us as much genocides as anything else).
However, and here comes the logic into the game again, when you claim *that*, you should also accept the claim of black people saying it's right to kill whites because they are subhuman. If you don't accept that, then you are clearly talking crap, and your argumentation has no validity.
Thus, reversing the reasoning on yourself (and one's opinion if it is 'right', then ) is the way to determine if something is ethical correct, even when opinions differ.
That's why I extensively asked you the question (not sure if I ever got a clear answer, though;-) whether you would accept it, if things were reversed. I don't think you would, which makes it ethical dubious at best.
I however, am fully prepared to let another person speak his mind; I have no problems with reversing my reasoning on myself, and thus, I do find, indeed, this reasoning not only stronger in consistency, but also better in an ethical way.
And thus, I've been suckered into responding on this thread again;-)
It's been an interesting discussion, but I think it has outlived is usefulness in this thread under this/. article.:-)
I think we have some basic differences in perceprtion on things, where we both think we are being illogical...or where you think logic doesn't matter very much, I dunno. If you really think this:
"I think you are misguided if you think that abstract logic (based on hypothetical situations or not) always goes above opinions based on facts in case of social issues. "
Then, in essence, you say that in social issues, an opinion of one group inherently can go above the opinions of another, even when there is no logic or rationality behind it. I think this is a basic misconception, and even if it WERE true, then it means that whatever group has the power could rightfully claim it is the way based on their opinions, without having to argument them logically.
I do not think this to be correct, for the simple reason that every group imaginable always tries to give their rationale for it, they always argument it, and they always strive to be consistent (even when they are not, or being pseudo-rational/scientific, at least they try to convey it that way.
So, while I agree societies are not always being logical and consistent, when it comes to governing and laws, I think one DOES not to strive for consistency.
Saying that is not necessary, also means another group with oposing ideas do not have to show any logic, that their opinion is, in principle, enough, whether they can argument it in a correct way or not. I would claim that in most cases, facist/racist/etc. ideologies show a far greater degree of a lack of consystency and illogic, which is yet another defining difference that can be used to show they are incorrect. Given the choice between demonstrating they are wrong, and muffling them up (with obvious little results, seen the progress of ultra-right in Europe), it is more democratic to chose for the first. And a democracy should always strive to be more democratic, not less.
You're axis does not make it that any better, it merely shows it's a step in wrong direction. While you seem to accept that step for a perceived benifit of peace, I don't. It's like the patriot act in the USA: meant for protecting the US against those evil muslims that want to create a fundamentalistic muslimstate all over the world. Well, a few more of those terror attacks, and a few more of these laws later, and what ARE you protecting, at the end? Not the free and democratic country, that's for sure. What use is it, in an efort to protect oneself, to become a policestate of your own?
In a similar way you are going the wrong way, when you try to shut up people, that are, in your opinion, against 'basic human rights'. What you end up with, is being more the way that those people would be, and if you think those people are doing the wrong thing, then you shouldn't be trying to go that way neither.
"Well, I think you are pretty extreme in not accepting any opinion or social evidence whatsoever, regardless of the supporting facts."
Well...ermm..I didn't see no evidence, just opinions. Social evidence of what, exactly? That societies can be irratic and illogical and inconsistent when making laws? Well, I agree with that, but I don't draw the same conclusions of it that you seem to do (see above). What supporting facts? That a lot of dudes with the best intentions drew up a list of basic huma rights? I agree with that too, but you fail to provide any evidence demonstrating that this makes it somehow universal in nature. If those rights were made up 1000 years ago, having slaves would probably have been a basic right, because most societies in the world accepted that practice, then. History does not prove that most of these basic rights are universal in nature (though for some behaviour and laws, like those against incest, there are indeed valid arguments to make a case it is universal). If they are not universal, they reflect
"Just a small nit: what your conclusion would be."
Hmm...do you mean to indicate that you *would* accept it, then? Because that was the conculsion I made (that you wouldn't accept the same reasoning, but reversed on yourself).
"I do not feel the least bit hypocrite about it."
Well, I hope you are not going to get on your high horse again, because I'm not saying you are hypocrite, but, really... there are many hypocrites who don't feel they are hypocrite. Thus, whether a person feels or not that he himself is hypocrite is by no means the proof that he isn't.
Following the actual meaning of the word, if one does not act the way one preaches (or does not accept a reasoning for himself that he himself uses on others), this constitute hypocrisy. The question whether a person himself believes or feels he is (or not), does not enter the picture.
"I've simply been looking for arguments that can show you why I feel that way and why your conclusion does not hold."
I think you mean; why you do not agree with me. My argumentation and conclusion holds, in any case better then yours, because mine is not based on opinions, while yours boil down to just that.
Basically, you are saying: well, societies aren't rational, and don't have to be. Well, if so, then you can't have anything against societies like that of the taliban, which denegrate women.
You may counterargument that that is against a basic right, but, so what? They don't have to be rational, so whether they feel it is a basic right, why should they care? In a way, you are proving my point, that, if, like you claim societies have a right to choose for theirselves, even if they are irrational, then societies have the right to chose to be racist or fundamentalist too.
"If you managed to get a powerful movement, managed to grasp power for a while and forbid eduction to a lot of people that way, I'm quite sure that afterwards draconian measures would be taken to prevent that basic right (as pretty much the entire world, from authoritarian to libertarian, has agreed) from being taken away again."
This is rather a fact, but not an argument. It would, for instance, only be true if one had not the majority of the people thinking the same. Furthermore, exactly the same could be said if the current democratic 'humanistic' movement would lose power for a while and facists take over: they would make sure draconian laws are created to make sure that forbidding 'racist talk' (and, alas, probably a lot of other 'basic rights') would never happen again.
Again, one can only conclude that the only real difference is, to let people free as much as possible, especially in the area of speech. A facist could never do that, because his power is based on limiting others with oposing views, while a true democracy can.
Your argumentation does however point to a more fundamental disagreement: though you never actually say it, I make up of what you say that you DO believe that the 'basic rights' as described in UDHR is, somehow, universal. You speak about 'evolution' as if we are or have evolved towards a goal. Alas, even in a biological sense evolution has no goal, it's just based on chance.
If nazism and facism had won and dominated the world, and they decided to create a UDHR, I'm quite sure it would encompass a whole lot of different 'basic rights' then it is today. That they didn't won is rather the result of chance (being the weakest in the conflict), not the result of evolution.
"That is correct, but as I said we are not talking about just one opinion on itself, far from it. "
Sometimes, I completely fail to see your point. We are not talking about one opinion? Well, are two opinions against one opinion better, then? Even if it are the two opinions of facists against one opinion of an anti-facist? Is a majority of opinions what makes the difference? Well then, that places us back at the hypothetical situation where the majority of opinions is against 'anti-racist' speech. Would you
hmm, well..that would defeat my purpose of making it one of the central parts of my blog. I'm still working on it, however, when it's finished I'll give you a sign, and if you object to something in particular, we can always see what we can do about it.
I didn't make any conclusions, as of yet, so it may be a bit premature to call it false. On the other hand, it is rather clear what the inevitable conclusion would be, indeed, and I suspect that's why you are so reluctant to answer it.
Thus, I'll go further as if you gave one of two answers: yes and no.
Now, remember, the main argument you gave, was that it was against a basic human right. It is fairly trivial to demonstarte that that can't be the main reason at all, because speech that goes against other 'basic rights' is not being forbidden. And apart from that, basic human rights are, as we now can agree on, I hope (?), not universal, but rather based on opinions. Opinions change, we both agree on that also.
Therefor, in a hypothetical world, where right wingers rule with a majority and decide that 'anti-racism speech' should be forbidden and calling black people subhuman is a basic right, etc., it would follow that, in that case, it would be against a basic human right, and thus, you should agree they have the right to make it forbidden.
If you do accept and agree to that, then, for sure, you are not hypocritical.
We both now, however, that you (well, at least I) would never agree to such a thing, whether they have a majority, claim it's a basic right or make laws that forbid it.
Well...my point is, if we would feel we have the right to disregard it, even when it complies with the reasons given that you think allows for forbidding it, then why could another person today not feel the same about the current 'racism speech' laws?
If we, using the same reasoning, have the right to 'say' it, whether it is against a basic right or not, then so does he. If he doesn't, then so don't we.
Ofcourse, you could claim again consistency is not necessary, but then you are, in fact, purely saying: you can't say that, because it's my opinion you can't say that. As we both now, however, opinions as such (thus, without argumenting them and, indeed, using logic and consistency) are nothing more then just that; mere opinions. One opinion, on itself, isn't worth anything more then the next. Even if we are convinced our opinion is right, another person with a fully opposite opinion can be convinced *he* is right.
Now, my last point is, that facists and racists, as you yourself rightfully pointed out, would be the first to forbid speech that they seem as unallowable. Suppressing freedom of speech is THE sign of dictatorships. It boils down to saying: because I'm (or 'we', when they have majority) of the opinion that it can't be said, you may not say it.
Well, guess what, we are doing just the same.
That we do it out of reasons that we think, nay, are convinced is for the good of society does not make a distinctive difference, because ultra-rights might see it as a good thing for society too.
So, what IS the distinction, then? The only one remaining is this: that you allow freedom of speech. A facist state will never allow that, while a democratic one does (or at least can, as is proven by the USA).
I hope you see my point: making some part of free speech illegal makes us more facist and dictatorial, instead of more democratic, while it's just that, that we wanted to avoid.
It is becoming tiresome, indeed. While you perceive my posts as being dogmatic and not open to arguments, I rather see yours as increasingly so. I try to give arguments and counterarguments in every post, while you respond hardly to any of my questions or points.
You say it's dogmatic that I regard rights, including 'basic human rights' as written down statements that express an opinion. Well, then YOU answer it: do you think those rights do not reflect an opinion, but are somehow truelly universal in nature?
If they are, indeed, opinions, then you have to acknowledge that those opinions can change, agreed with that?
Well, then, I'll repeat my question:
In the beginning, I've said that, if you say that 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you think it is wrong and against the law, then, if the right-wing would make a majority, they could equally well deem anti-racism wrong and make laws to forbid *that*. My question then was: would you, in that case, accept that you couldn't speak about 'anti-racism' talk?
You tried to counter that by saying it is based on a 'universal' concept/basic human right... but as I pointed out, those are just a consensus on what constitutes basic human rights within our timeframe. It merely pushes my question further, but it does not answer it.
If rightwingers would have a majority in the worldpopulace, including the experts that think about what those rights constitute, and in those fantastic articles they make a lot of changes, and they add a clause that it is a basic human right to forbid anyone from making anti-racism speech... then, anti-racism talk will be against a 'basic human right' as well, and thus, following your reasoning, you should/would accept that they shut ppl up if they talk about anti-racism.
If you would not accept that reasoning in that case however - because of your own bias towards anti-racism - even when it's the same reasoning you used to forbid racism-talk, *then* you would be hypocritical.
You are on your high horse, claiming I said you are a hypocrite, while I never did, which you would have noticed, if you read my posts carefully.
Whether you are hypocrite or not, fully depends on you, and your stance and some few variables, such as: do you accept that opinions, laws and rights can change? Do you think 'basic human rights' do not reflect an opinion, but are somehow truelly universal in nature? Do you agree that you are bound by your OWN reasoning, even if that very same reasoning is, or would be, used to forbid you (when ultra-right would become the majority, for instance) to speak something you feel very strongly about, such as anti-racist speech?
Depending on these questions, you could or could not be a hypocrite, that is all I said and am saying.
You speak of consequences, but you know as well as I do, that people are responsible for their OWN deeds and actions. There has never been established a direct correlation, let alone a causality, between mere speech (not incitement or your fire-alarm example, thus) of one person, and the actions of others. Even in europe, courts have ruled that guilt-by-proxy in such a matter is not valid, and with reason. If you are not only going to hold the persons responsible that DO the illegal things, but also the persons who *might* have had an influence on their behaviour, even when it is only speech, then one can start suing everybody, really.
If courts would rule differently, then every media, including books and movies, that depicted or conveyed illegal or violent acts, could be forbidden, because it might lead to some people doing something that is illegal or damaging to somebody else. Luckily, people are deemed guilty for their actions, not their thoughts, or the expression of those thoughts on themselves (at least in the USA). For the latter, however, suddenly europe makes an exeption when it comes to 'racist speech', without giving any substantial reasons why this would merrit such a peculiar treatement.
"The lobbyists are likely to teach them that the GPL is immoral, and the typical user here would make them memorize the collected works of Richard Stallman in English class."
I *have* memorised the collective works of R.Stallman, you unsensitive clod!
What..? You mean it's not obligotary to do so from kindergarten, in your country?:-o
"Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation). I'm not sure how this validates your point in anyway, or makes my opinion hypocrite as you've tried to make me say two or three times already in this discussion."
To merely have an opinion, can, on itself, never be hypocrite. It rather involves a contradictory discrepancy between, for example, what one says and what one does.
I was arguing that your reasoning could be deemed hypocritical if you use a reasoning to muffle up speech, whereas you would not accept the same reasoning, if others would muffle your speech up, but for things *you* think are right.
I'll try to explain one last time.:-)
In the beginning, I've said that, if you say that 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you think it is wrong and against the law, then, if the right-wing would make a majority, they could equally well deem anti-racism wrong and make laws to forbid *that*. My question then was: would you, in that case, accept that you couldn't speak about 'anti-racism' talk?
You tried to counter that by saying it is based on a 'universal' concept/basic human right... but as I pointed out, those are just a consensus on what constitutes basic human rights within our timeframe. It merely pushes my question further, but it does not answer it.
If rightwingers would have a majority in the worldpopulace, including the experts that think about what those rights constitute, and in those fantastic articles they make a lot of changes, and they add a clause that it is a basic human right to forbid anyone from making anti-racism speech... then, anti-racism talk will be against a 'basic human right' as well, and thus, following your reasoning, you should/would accept that they shut ppl up if they talk about anti-racism.
If you would not accept that reasoning in that case however - because of your own bias towards anti-racism - even when it's the same reasoning you used to forbid racism-talk, *then* you would be hypocritical.
"Nevertheless they called it the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and for good reason. "
LOL. Yes, they call it that. But by any name, a rose...;-)
If the reason is 'good', or even valid remains to be seen. Surely, you will agree that calling something universal, does not mean it is, in effect, universal.
What they mean, rather, is that it constitutes a rather broad, though not total, consensus on what basic human rights should be, by the majority of the world population, in a certain timeframe. Not more, nor less. Do you agree with that?
It has nothing to do with really being universal, for which one would at least have to assert that a given human concept/attitude/behaviour/etc. would be present in all cultures and societies, in all time frames, to even try to make the claim it could be truelly universal.
There are, in that case, very limited examples where one could hope to establish that they are 'universal' human traits. Allowing (or not) free 'hate speech' is certainly not one of them, as is quite aparent in our own timeframe, even.
BTW, thnks for pasting the articles. Reading them, it's rather up to interpretation if certain forms of speech actually constitutes 'destruction of rights'. Free speech does not destruct the right of free speech of anyone else, but it does obstruct the possibility of destroying what others say. IMHO, it is better to destroy the ability of others to suppress opinions, then destroying the ability of unfeathered closure of opinions. In the first case, you have free speech, in the second, you have some form of censorship, where people are not free to make their own choice based on the 'unfeathered' information they can get.
All in all, I'm all for letting people gather information and make up there own decision - even if they come to another conclusion that you wished for... what you? Censorship tries to control, free information lets individuals decide for there own.
scuze the spellingmistakes...I just went out and I'm pretty drunk.:-)
"Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation)."
That's very true, and that's what I've been trying to convey. Whether you call it universal or not, it is not. something that is truelly universal would be something that can be found back in any time, in any society. There are some examples which may be eligible, but 'hate speech' is not one of them. It is, therefor, not universal, nor fundamental (or basic).
Freedom of expression does not hold it's power from that sort of 'basic right' neither, as I've said before. I claim the position of that is stronger, because it is more consistent, not that it is deemed a basic right by some ninkempoops who have thought long about it, and decided it's universal.
"And these rules should be debated on their merits, not only on whether or not they are all 100% consistent."
Ofcourse they should be debated on their merrits...but the merrits are also derived from the fact if they are consistent or not. That's what I've been saying: 'bad' laws are not bad because of the consistency, they are bad because of their content. If you see inconsistencies, it's an indicator that something is wrong with the law.
"So can the Internet without Freenet, and plenty of other technologies."
Not anonimously. The big factor of difference is, that with freenet there is no way to put the genie in the bottle. You can not forbid any sort of free speech, which is contrary to anything tried as yet, including the regular Net.
"Arguments like "we will break society so it can reinvent itself" are quite weak in my opinion."
they are as weak or as strong as saying that it will sacrifice society.:-)
"Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech."
Speech is speech; it doesn't alter the factual acts, as long as it remain speech and not actions. To claim speech should be forbidden when it offends a perceived basic right, or even a mere feeling of offense, like some people are claiming, is ridiculous. Your claim is , in essence, not correct: unfettered hate speech, as long as it remains speech, does NOT actually restrict rights of people. Freedom of speech does not oblige anyone to agree with it, to listen to it, to act on it, etc. Clairly, the level of restriction, even if you would take it there is one, is far less then the restriction imposed by racism-laws that plainly forbid certain forms of speech. One can not possibly claim that allowing more speech is restricting more then not allowing some speech, because in the first case, both can argue and debate and use the fre speech, while the latter only reserves the right of speech to one group.
"Fortunately, basic human rights are not just what you, I or any dictator thinks they are. They've been thought about and then defined quite clearly. But I suppose I'll now get another "I knew you were going to say that" reply and some reasons why you consider that document to be non-authorative."
No, I'm only saying that when I actually knew you were going to say that, and this time, I didn't knew. I did went over with my thoughts before, however.
Indeed, I do not consider it authorative, in the sense that it is somehow 'universal'. I agree, as an individual, with the priciple(s) and with most 'basic rights' as described, but that is something else. What it boils down too, is that it represents the greatest common nominator that the majority of people held as an opinion (and agreed to) of what constitutes a basic right. Am am quite sure they are thought of, quite extensively, by the best experts there are...but it still represents an opinion, even though a (presumed) generally accepted one.
Which brings us back to what I said about a country: while 'the majority' in an european country may consider the current 'racism laws' a good thing, it does not make it a universal or fundamental thing. When the majority would shift to right-wingers, the same reasoning could be applied by them to muffle our free speech up - and I mean not in the 'but they could do it anyways', but in the 'remaining within the same reasoning' way.
You counter that by argumenting it's not the same, because it's (not) about a human right. But those same basic human rights were developped and agreed on, according to criteria that were and are being accepted by the majority of people, within this timeframe. If right-wingers would become the majority of the world population, including all those experts that make authoritative books on what constitutes a basic right, then one could be sure the criteria and definition (and the basic rights themselves) would probably differ from what they are today.
So, 'basic human rights' are maybe basic in a contempory way, but they certainly are not 'universal' in the strict sense. If the islam had dominated the world in the 20iest and 21st century, our basic human rights would probably be based on the teachings of the shariat, and might include some things that you wouldn't deem a basic human right.
Ultimately, ALL rights are based on opinions.
"As I said, this is not merely about my opinion.[...]"
No, and I'm not alone with my opinion neither; but that doesn't amount to anything. What should china care if some article does not find the stabibilty of the state as fundamental, if they do? I mean, if a christian or islamic figure begins to site paragraphs out of the bible or koran, to show you what rights you have and what not, would you feel compelled to abide by it?
Only if you deem those paragraphs and books to be right (or authorative) for yourself.
I tried your link but it didn't work when I klicked it, but, I'll asume that you are right and article 30 clearly and unmistakingly forbids 'hate speech', even when presented as pure speech, and not inticement.
Well, that just proves my point, actually. I do not agree with that, then. Nor does the USA, in majority. And if the majority of the world, including those experts that thought so long about it, would see it the same way...well, what then? Article 30 would be scrapped or adapted, period. The authority it has is not carved in stone, nor is it truelly universal (meaning, of all places and times), it's only power is that which it has and is bestowed upon by people whome accept it.
"I am not a law scholar, but I am indeed extremely sceptical it's possible to make laws without any exceptions or special cases whatsoever that cater to society/economy as a whole. More on that at the end of this post."
You make, again, the mistake of thinking that consistency and a general rule-of-thumb are somehow intertwined. Being consistent can be catered to specific fields, and to gen
"Well, I guess it shows I generally manage to stay out of the hornet's nest this kind of discussion always is.";-)
I appreciate your posts, however. IIRC, I have been impressed by some good posts of you before. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you live in the same country as me, and we've emailed eachother before.
"Maybe a better example is slander/libel. Even if you are 100% convinced something is true, if you can't prove it and it harms someone else (indirectly), you are not allowed to publicise it."
Note, however, that in many countries it isn't forbidden to say it on itself, it's just that you have to prove it afterwards, if you are sued.
Unless clear harm can be demonstrated, as a *direct* result of the 'slander/libel' (and it's demonstrated to be just that), I would do away with those laws too. (Well, actually adapt them, thus). It's noteworthy that on this issue too, many countries have a far more tolerant policy then in our country, so there is nothing fundamental about it.
"No, it's because it is about the same rights the whole free speech stuff is about. With "fundamental" rights I meant the basic human rights (right to live, right to freedom of religion, right to food,...). When these rights conflict or are threatened to be abolished, then you get discussions like the one we are in. There's nothing artificial about that."
I already answered that one, really. The whole point that you make depends on what you consider to be basic human rights. What constitues a 'basic human right', how much basic one may make it, and how much I myself may agree with it or not, is ultimately only an opinion too. There are dictators and right-wingers enough that have a whole other opinion of basic rights. So saying "it should be so, because it is fundamental", is nothing more then saying "it should be so, because in my opinion, it is a fundamental right". But then, we can go back to my example of the chinese government, and if that is of the opinion that the stability of the state is a 'fundamental right', then you can not argument against it. You may agree to it being a basic right or not, but that has no bearing on their opinion of it.
So, I say, since opinions can differ, at least when you DO take an opinion, you should be consistent in it. Thus, if you are of the opinion 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you deem it (contrary to) a perceived fundamental right, you should also acknowledge that another person might equally forbid anti-racism, if he deems it (to be contrary to) a perceived fundamental right.
Many would disagree with that, however, making the reasoning and application hypocrite.
If, however, one is of the opinion that free speech should be absolute, then you must agree that another person can make use of that absolute free speech too.
Well, I agree another person can use that.:-)
So, you see, consistency DOES have an intrinsic value.
"You want pure consistency within the law, I prefer consistency between the general idea of protecting society/economy and the law."
Ah yes, well, that was why I said there is no dichotomy between the two, even if some may portray it as such. You make it sound if you can not have the one without the other. I however, claim that you can protect society/economy, even when remaining consistent; the two are not mutually exclusive. If there IS a contradiction between the two in some instance, it's indicative that the law is bad, not that it should be less consistent.
I sometimes feel that people think 'generalistation' and 'consistency' are the same things, while they are not, at all. Lwas may be bad because they are (over)generalising, NOT because they are consistent. Take you example of "all mamals should be treated equal' and then saying; you can't be consistent, because you treat animals different then humans. Well, yes, but is it a bad law because it's not consistent, or is it a bad law, bacause it was generalisin
Slashdot Mirror
"One reason we have a lot of foreign policy "issues" today is because of times in the past where we chose *not* to defend our properties/assets in other countries when those properties were taken over in changes of leadership in those nations."
This is SO arrogant, it almost defies imagination. It's exactly this sort of crap that makes me puke and think about the USA as some dangerously arrogant and self-centered behemot that not only walses over sovereign states and international law, but even thinks, nay, is convinced they have the RIGHT to do so.
I can't believe you actually say it as it's a given and that it's only normal. Are you THAT daft and blindly arrogant?
The USA does NOT have the right to invade countries because their corporations have 'invested' (more correctly; exploited people and resources) in foreign countries. In fact, many of this things are not even of the USA, though they like to think they can claim it. I bet you think the oil in Iraq is of the US too, because some american oilcompagnies got contracts?
Get real.
What you are advocating is, no more or less, imperialism.
Tell you what: you just keep trying to do that; consider all resources of the world to be yours, and try to withold the rights of the indiginous people to THEIR rescources and right to decide themselves what they want to do with it... see how far that will get you.
We must have completely different standards of what is proper behaviour, then. I suppose you will tell me that his behaviour on the golfcourse was fully normal too, and a shallow joke was just the thing needed to get morale up.
Aparently, excuses can always be found, and it seems it's all in the eye of the beholder. Whatever Moore showed, your bias will change it in something palatable, no doubt. Let me guess: the WMD WERE found, because they found some decade-old granate with a detoriated gas inside burried in the sand somewhere? Or no, WMD were never the real reason to go to war! (Though everyone objective can easily see it was the main argument used at the time, if only because they knew making iraq into an imminent thread for the USA was going to rally enough public support). Or was it because iraq had links to the regime...o, wait, they don't. Though a BBC-documentary showed clearly that Soedan is actively supporting terroristcamps; but hey, that didn't merrit an invasion; iraq was more interesting.
"The Bin Laden family is very large and are not hostile to the US in any way, Osama being the only exception."
False. First of all, your argument why saudi's could be flown off, while all the rest was grounded is spurious. As if the saudi's were the only group posible that should not fear a terrorist attack. Ah, well, you may have a point, and one can only wonder why?
But following your reasoning, they had nothing to do with it, so it seems strange you preclude only them. What? ALL the rest was prone to attacks, accept them? What a strange claim. And if not, it clearly demonstrates the weirdness that they were exempted while none else was, apparently based on their cosy tit-for-tat friendship with bush.
And that they were going to be targeted as reparation is a mere excuse. I mean what, you think the USA is a banana-republic where mobs can linch people hold for interrogation, just like that? You think it's impossible to get the familymembers to an unknown to the public, secure location?
And secondly, as another poster already made aparent: many of the saudi's had, at least financially, supported bin laden, at least up to the 9/11 attack (and even afterwards he still had connections with some family members). And you don't think that warrants even the slightest interrogation? And even worse; at least two of the saudi's that were flown away were ALREADY under investigation by the FBI for terrorist involvement.
But you find that all very reasonable, and a correct way of handling? It's all 'irrelevant'? Geez.
"It would have made no sense whatsoever to interrupt his storytelling with children simply because something had happened in New York."
'Something'? Dude, it was not about a car-accident we're talking about here. They didn't say to Bush 'something is happening'. One of the first things Bush heard was 'America is under attack'...and you SERIOUSLY content that just sitting there and not reacting at all for 7 minutes is not only the right, but even an aplaudable 'action'? Are you really that daft? You don't think asking for more information would be a more proper reaction? You don't think that moving into a more secure envirronment, when a head of state clearly could be targeted too, was a more sane thing to do? You really have weird standards for what constitutes an intelligent reaction.
All your argumentation is silly anyhow, because ultimately, he DID interrupt the reading (when other, more intelligent people made it clear it was unwise to stay there), albeit after sitting there for 7 minutes. If your argumentation were true, and it was so wise to go on, why didn't he go on untill his PR-tour actually finished? None of your so-called arguments (if one were to accept their validity) change after 7 minutes, now, do they?
Bushsupporter or not, you did avoid all the other remarks made by the original poster.
Do you think flewing off the saudis, including family-members of bin laden, when all planes could not leave is just a BFD-class molehill too?
Do you think his reaction on the golfterrain was only normal too?
I, for one, do not think that it's a normal reaction of a president, hearing that his country is under attack, to just keep reading and continuing his PR-tour. As others have said: it's not about giving a press-conference on the spot, but it IS about knowing your priorities, cutting short trivial (in comparison) things like the PR-profiling and normal routine, and trying to get more information and holding a staff meeting, or something. THAT is what I would expect a president to do, and it has nothing to do with hindsight.
And the same with most other things that were shown of bush (and his reactions): it is NOT normal or a BFD-class molehill; M.Moore just made it plain obvious Bush was and is a complete idiot without any real character, that puts self-interest before anything else.
Well, maybe with the exeption of the universe itself. ;-)
"If you began with GPL code, all code that was added is automatically GPL, including any code you wrote yourself."
That is bullocks. An author ALWAYS has (and remains) copyright of hiw own work. He can decide to bring it out under whatever licence he choses, including dual (or more) licences. If he makes his licence available under GPL AND a proprietary licence, he can do so.
The only thing he can't do, is using other peoples' patches that were provided to him under the GPL-licence and use that in his proprietary licence-sheme.
If he removed all those patches and wrote them from scratch himself (or got the permission of the authors), he could and can easily sell his product as a proprietary tool (too). The GPL'ed version would remain under the GPL, however.
744 people sued!
Only 4.326.849 P2P users to go!
I doubt your first argument is true. The words that were considered abhorent misuses of language in the past weren't stopped, apparently, by the witholding of approval.
Ofcourse, it's difficult to say the succes rate of such a thing, because words that would be stopped in that way aren't around to be counted anymore, obviously.
But at any rate, it's fair to say that witholding approval isn't that effective, otherwise a whole lot more of formerly wrong words would not have made it.
What is far more detrimental, is the widespread use of the word, and in that option, speaking of 'virii', even in a negative way, contributes to this.
You other example eludes me (as an argument). Of course when you use a word only locally, it won't get mainstream, that's a given in the 'duh' area. and probably other people would noot get the inside joke...but, what? Do you think all words that started as insidejokes and got mainstream are now still recognised as insidejokes?
I really fail to see your argument with this. If 'Interweb' was widely used, and people understood what was meant by it, then, yes, it could become a regular 'real' word too. So what's your point?
As for your last paragraph, it's true that in some sense, evryone has an influence...but let's face it, it's more like saying 'I influence the weather'. Everyone influences the weather in some small part, and maybe even in a big way, as demonstrated by the chaos-theory, but oàne can't really direct it, and one can't really know the measure of influence, so the point is rather accademical.
As for your less then dignitory feelings and remarks about users of the word 'virii', that's just it: it spread well beyond the mere use of the so-called 'losers'. It's true it's still not mainstream, but it's equally true it has left its roots of scriptkiddies and leet-speaking geeks behind.
But, even if you were right, it doesn't make of a consistent argument against it. Do you have any idea, how many words have roots in the subburbs, subcultures by hoi palloi that couldn't speak a proper sentence and were, back then, considered far worse then mere geeky losers?
Yet, those words today are mainstream, and often lack the degenatory context it once had. So, while you may think it's a sign of losers and idiots today, within ten years it can be easily considered the standard word for computerviruses, and nobody in the future may see it in the negative image of 'losers' anymore, just as we don't see many words in a negative light anymore, even when they did, back when they started.
All by all, there is no logical argument given as yet, why it would or should be impossible, to incorporate virii in the mainstream language, once it is used widely and people understand what is meant by it. History shows us that the first has happend many times, and for the second it would mean you couldn't use a LOT of words if you wan't to remain consistent with your own viewpoint.
"Virtually everyone who uses the word "virii" uses it because they misapplied the radius -> radii rule."
No, they don't. Maybe it started that way, but most now either are well aware it's not correct 'latin', or they don't know nor care about the classical rule.
What, you think the poster that used virii here unknowingly 'missapplied' a latin rule for making it plural? I don't think so. I bet he was well aware of the issues surrounding the word.
And maybe you are not aware of it, but english (and allmost all other languages) are stuffed with verbs and other words which, at one time, were considered abhorent and totally wrong too. So it's not like this is the one ultimate exeption. Yet, you all use these words without any problems, mostly not even aware that they were considered a linguistic horror in the past.
And ofcourse you can try to stop it.
But that's like trying to stop people from going to 'the passion of Christ'; the more you tell people it's disgusting and shouldn't be watched, the more people go and watch. You are, in this respect, in a natural disadvantage: the more people talk about 'virii', even in a context of not wanting to accept the use of it, the more it *is* used, and the more likely it becomes that it will become mainstream.
This *always* happens on slashdot when 'virii' is mentionned. It's worth noting, however, that the protests when encountering the word 'virii' are getting less frequent and not as fast as they used to be. A tell-tale sign that, even here, it's slowly becoming accepted. After all, immer more artcles and posts make use of it, outside the pure scriptkiddie/leet speaking populace. Let's face it: it's getting commonly used and well on it's way to some day reach dictionary status. But in the meantime, you always will have those that opose it.
A whole bunch of "It's latin", "no, it's not", "it's slang", "no it's not" posts will pop-up like mushrooms.
While I agree that it's not correct latin, and I understand that some people have difficulties with the 'correctness' of it, it really doesn't matter one bit as to the validity of a word.
1)Language 'lives'; it changes with the passing of time.
2)Slang is not 'inferior' or 'wrong'; it are just words that are used in a subculture.
3)Words of a subculture can and have become 'mainstream'
4)In the past, english (as many other languages) has been 'corrupted' with equally 'wrong' words...yet we use them today as if they always have been correct, mostly not even being aware that once they were considered stupid, wrong, grammatically incorrect, foreign, nonsensical, inferior, ridiculous, the result of laziness, plain misspelled, etc.
Yet they are *all* considered mainstream english now! So, let's face it, there is *no* objective mechanism where you can say; this word has no place in our language or not.
If it's understood and used in this language, then ipso facto, it *IS* part of that language.
Now, anyone understands what is meant by 'virii' and more and more people/posts use the term virii, with purpose, even beyond their 1337 roots.
So it really is silly to fulminate that virii is not a word; it is used as one, it is understood as one, and it even has left it's pure sub-culture 1337 roots behind so that now it's actually becoming slowly mainstream. So what, in a year or 5, it may end up in the dictionary, as so many 'non-existent' words before it...and what will be the the contra-argument then?
Why, in another 20 years most persons won't even know anymore that it was once considered as 'non-existent' or 'wrong'. They will use it, as we use all those other words where people fulminated against, just as with they will with new, totally wrong words that will pop-up. That's what it means when we say a language lives, after all.
You don't have to go to another universe to encounter people that have a different opinion on software patents (alas). :-)
"I'm under the impression both of us think the other one doesn't get the points he's trying to get across, so I'll leave it at this."
;-)
True, true. Well...I think we might have an idea what each of us wants to say, only we seem to speak aside eachother when debating the issue.
Luckily, *we* have freedom of expression!
"Good luck with your blog."
Thanks. Feel free to check it out once in a while. I plan on placing some stuff there relating to software patents too; a subject we both take an interest in, if I'm not mistaken.
"Sorry dude, but now you are plain lying. I nowhere said that the human rights as found in the UDHR were universally applied in history."
errrm...:
"It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally" (dixit you)
If they apply in all situations, they also apply in situations in the past, hence, history. It seems a bit bold to claim I'm lying then, when one could very reasonably deduce you meant just that; in ALL situations, passed or present.
Anyway, we're back to square one, it seems.
I understand by your last post you definately agree that the UDHR is only an opinion too. Yes, yes, by a lot of experts in different countries and all that, but still an opinion, right? So, if others (in idem way) would decide something else is a human basic right, then what?
I gather you wouldn't accept that, because in that case, it wouldn't be a human right...but acording to whome, then, if the majority of the world populace would agree it *is*? According to you.
Thus, you deem your opinion of more importance then the opinion of those people, which would claim, for instance, anti-hate speech should be illegal. You could claim that because it would be not in the line of what a basic human right should be (dignity and peace and all that)...but again, according to whome?
Again; you. (and the experts and what not of THIS timeframe, but these wouldn't be there, in the hypothetical case).
Basically, it DOES amount to your opinion being more worth then that of another, when you put it that way.
Since we both agreed one opion isn't worth then another, this poses a problem in the view you portray. (hence the possibility for hypocrisy which you claim does not exist).
Now, you can, again, claim that societies don't work that way and what not, but you can not deny that there is something wrong with the reasoning, in that case.
Basically, what you are saying is; I accept the authority of the UDHR, as long as I agree with the opinions/reasons/goals of those who made it. Well, that's hardly surprising, and it amounts to just saying that you'll accept an opinion you agree with, but not with one you disagree with.
I have been trying to convey this a thousand times, and I still don't know for sure: do you agree with that, or not?
I somehow feel, maybe not justified (?), that you try to avoid the examination of the reasoning you gave. You keep saying that societies don't work that way, and that they are irratic and illogical, but frankly, I don't give a rats' ass about that. It's irrelevant to the question whether or not your reasoning is valid, because if society can be irratic and is justified in doing so when deciding 'hate speech' should be forbidden, it can be irratic and decide 'anti-hate speech' should be forbidden too. Period.
There is NO justification for bringing societies irratic behaviour in it, since, if you accept it can be irratic, then it doesn't have to follow logic, and thus it can be used to justify anything that is illogical. Therefor, if you accept the irratic and illogical behaviour/laws/etc. because it's in the nature of societies, then you should also accept their irratic and illogical behaviour/laws/etc. when they do something that you don't agree with, including anti-hate speech.
The whole extra argument of UDHR is just pushing it a bit further away, but not really solving anything. You no longer speak of societies, but of 'basic rights'. Well, if those basic rights are opinions - and whether they are agreed on by thousands of experts or not, it still remain opinions - then they do not have more sway then other opinions.
Sure, they are argumented, and probably pretty consistent...but it all depends on what someone considers to be human rights in the first place, right? Using the word 'psychopaths' does not solve this neither; nazi's wouldn't consider themselves to be psychopaths and in a more benign form, I do not agree with (some inte
I put it on the blog at http://newsbyte.blogspot.com/
I only slightly modified it, mainly spellingmistakes-corrections, but if you feel I didn't do a good job of representing both our posts correctly, feel free to indicate what should be changed.
"You are the one that keeps saying that the only way to justify it is that it's a majority opinion, not me."
;-) whether you would accept it, if things were reversed. I don't think you would, which makes it ethical dubious at best.
;-)
No, I don't and didn't. What I have been saying is, that, if you accept that a majority justifies laws against hate-speech, it justifies laws against anti-hate speech too.
"It does not mean that it is so by law of nature or so, it means that those rights apply in all situations/universally"
Indeed, and that's my point exactly: they do not show that. Slavery, for instance, was a very common accepted practise, at one time. Yet, in the current timeframe, it would be considered fundamental against human basic rights.
"There is logic and rationality behind it (disrespect for the human rights they mention has resulted in great tragedies, while respect for them hasn't -> it seems logical to demand..."
If you are of the opinion that something is a tragedy. I doubt the nazi's would have found it a tragedy if all jews were killed in concentrationcamps.
Now, while you claimed consistency does not make a law/policy stronger, I claim it does. It doesn't make it 'better', because that means giving it a subjective value, and that depends on one's views.
Therefor, a reasoning that has consistency, even if one does not agree with, is stronger then the same kind of reasoning without it. I think this is always true: I can't think of any reasoning that gets stronger when it has more internal contradictions in it.
Thus, consistency DOES make an argument stronger, though it doesn't give us 'good' (in the sense of ethical) reasonings. But what, then, can one use for ethical guidelines? IMHO, (I was gonna say that in my blog, but...seems difficult not to be further drawn into this discussion) it is, again, logic that can lead us to it.
A basic principle of Kants' philosophy, was that you shouldn't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you. It is as simple as elegant in it's logic and almost undisputable as a good ethical guideline, and that's why I think, personally, that allmost all basic rights in the UDHR are 'good'. Contrary to you, however, I'm still well aware that, ultimately, this is an opinion. Somebody can perfectly be of the opinion that killing blacks because of their color of skin is not against a basic human right, because -again in his opinion - niggers are sub-human, and thus, fall outside the scope of human basic rights. You see how easily it is to make a case like that if opinions differ, regardless of the so-called universal application that you claim can be found in history. (If anything, history shows us as much genocides as anything else).
However, and here comes the logic into the game again, when you claim *that*, you should also accept the claim of black people saying it's right to kill whites because they are subhuman. If you don't accept that, then you are clearly talking crap, and your argumentation has no validity.
Thus, reversing the reasoning on yourself (and one's opinion if it is 'right', then ) is the way to determine if something is ethical correct, even when opinions differ.
That's why I extensively asked you the question (not sure if I ever got a clear answer, though
I however, am fully prepared to let another person speak his mind; I have no problems with reversing my reasoning on myself, and thus, I do find, indeed, this reasoning not only stronger in consistency, but also better in an ethical way.
And thus, I've been suckered into responding on this thread again
It's been an interesting discussion, but I think it has outlived is usefulness in this thread under this /. article. :-)
I think we have some basic differences in perceprtion on things, where we both think we are being illogical...or where you think logic doesn't matter very much, I dunno. If you really think this:
"I think you are misguided if you think that abstract logic (based on hypothetical situations or not) always goes above opinions based on facts in case of social issues. "
Then, in essence, you say that in social issues, an opinion of one group inherently can go above the opinions of another, even when there is no logic or rationality behind it. I think this is a basic misconception, and even if it WERE true, then it means that whatever group has the power could rightfully claim it is the way based on their opinions, without having to argument them logically.
I do not think this to be correct, for the simple reason that every group imaginable always tries to give their rationale for it, they always argument it, and they always strive to be consistent (even when they are not, or being pseudo-rational/scientific, at least they try to convey it that way.
So, while I agree societies are not always being logical and consistent, when it comes to governing and laws, I think one DOES not to strive for consistency.
Saying that is not necessary, also means another group with oposing ideas do not have to show any logic, that their opinion is, in principle, enough, whether they can argument it in a correct way or not. I would claim that in most cases, facist/racist/etc. ideologies show a far greater degree of a lack of consystency and illogic, which is yet another defining difference that can be used to show they are incorrect. Given the choice between demonstrating they are wrong, and muffling them up (with obvious little results, seen the progress of ultra-right in Europe), it is more democratic to chose for the first. And a democracy should always strive to be more democratic, not less.
You're axis does not make it that any better, it merely shows it's a step in wrong direction. While you seem to accept that step for a perceived benifit of peace, I don't. It's like the patriot act in the USA: meant for protecting the US against those evil muslims that want to create a fundamentalistic muslimstate all over the world. Well, a few more of those terror attacks, and a few more of these laws later, and what ARE you protecting, at the end? Not the free and democratic country, that's for sure. What use is it, in an efort to protect oneself, to become a policestate of your own?
In a similar way you are going the wrong way, when you try to shut up people, that are, in your opinion, against 'basic human rights'. What you end up with, is being more the way that those people would be, and if you think those people are doing the wrong thing, then you shouldn't be trying to go that way neither.
"Well, I think you are pretty extreme in not accepting any opinion or social evidence whatsoever, regardless of the supporting facts."
Well...ermm..I didn't see no evidence, just opinions. Social evidence of what, exactly? That societies can be irratic and illogical and inconsistent when making laws? Well, I agree with that, but I don't draw the same conclusions of it that you seem to do (see above). What supporting facts? That a lot of dudes with the best intentions drew up a list of basic huma rights? I agree with that too, but you fail to provide any evidence demonstrating that this makes it somehow universal in nature. If those rights were made up 1000 years ago, having slaves would probably have been a basic right, because most societies in the world accepted that practice, then. History does not prove that most of these basic rights are universal in nature (though for some behaviour and laws, like those against incest, there are indeed valid arguments to make a case it is universal). If they are not universal, they reflect
"Just a small nit: what your conclusion would be."
Hmm...do you mean to indicate that you *would* accept it, then? Because that was the conculsion I made (that you wouldn't accept the same reasoning, but reversed on yourself).
"I do not feel the least bit hypocrite about it."
Well, I hope you are not going to get on your high horse again, because I'm not saying you are hypocrite, but, really... there are many hypocrites who don't feel they are hypocrite. Thus, whether a person feels or not that he himself is hypocrite is by no means the proof that he isn't.
Following the actual meaning of the word, if one does not act the way one preaches (or does not accept a reasoning for himself that he himself uses on others), this constitute hypocrisy. The question whether a person himself believes or feels he is (or not), does not enter the picture.
"I've simply been looking for arguments that can show you why I feel that way and why your conclusion does not hold."
I think you mean; why you do not agree with me. My argumentation and conclusion holds, in any case better then yours, because mine is not based on opinions, while yours boil down to just that.
Basically, you are saying: well, societies aren't rational, and don't have to be. Well, if so, then you can't have anything against societies like that of the taliban, which denegrate women.
You may counterargument that that is against a basic right, but, so what? They don't have to be rational, so whether they feel it is a basic right, why should they care? In a way, you are proving my point, that, if, like you claim societies have a right to choose for theirselves, even if they are irrational, then societies have the right to chose to be racist or fundamentalist too.
"If you managed to get a powerful movement, managed to grasp power for a while and forbid eduction to a lot of people that way, I'm quite sure that afterwards draconian measures would be taken to prevent that basic right (as pretty much the entire world, from authoritarian to libertarian, has agreed) from being taken away again."
This is rather a fact, but not an argument. It would, for instance, only be true if one had not the majority of the people thinking the same. Furthermore, exactly the same could be said if the current democratic 'humanistic' movement would lose power for a while and facists take over: they would make sure draconian laws are created to make sure that forbidding 'racist talk' (and, alas, probably a lot of other 'basic rights') would never happen again.
Again, one can only conclude that the only real difference is, to let people free as much as possible, especially in the area of speech. A facist could never do that, because his power is based on limiting others with oposing views, while a true democracy can.
Your argumentation does however point to a more fundamental disagreement: though you never actually say it, I make up of what you say that you DO believe that the 'basic rights' as described in UDHR is, somehow, universal. You speak about 'evolution' as if we are or have evolved towards a goal. Alas, even in a biological sense evolution has no goal, it's just based on chance.
If nazism and facism had won and dominated the world, and they decided to create a UDHR, I'm quite sure it would encompass a whole lot of different 'basic rights' then it is today. That they didn't won is rather the result of chance (being the weakest in the conflict), not the result of evolution.
"That is correct, but as I said we are not talking about just one opinion on itself, far from it. "
Sometimes, I completely fail to see your point. We are not talking about one opinion? Well, are two opinions against one opinion better, then? Even if it are the two opinions of facists against one opinion of an anti-facist? Is a majority of opinions what makes the difference? Well then, that places us back at the hypothetical situation where the majority of opinions is against 'anti-racist' speech. Would you
hmm, well..that would defeat my purpose of making it one of the central parts of my blog. I'm still working on it, however, when it's finished I'll give you a sign, and if you object to something in particular, we can always see what we can do about it.
I didn't make any conclusions, as of yet, so it may be a bit premature to call it false. On the other hand, it is rather clear what the inevitable conclusion would be, indeed, and I suspect that's why you are so reluctant to answer it.
Thus, I'll go further as if you gave one of two answers: yes and no.
Now, remember, the main argument you gave, was that it was against a basic human right. It is fairly trivial to demonstarte that that can't be the main reason at all, because speech that goes against other 'basic rights' is not being forbidden. And apart from that, basic human rights are, as we now can agree on, I hope (?), not universal, but rather based on opinions. Opinions change, we both agree on that also.
Therefor, in a hypothetical world, where right wingers rule with a majority and decide that 'anti-racism speech' should be forbidden and calling black people subhuman is a basic right, etc., it would follow that, in that case, it would be against a basic human right, and thus, you should agree they have the right to make it forbidden.
If you do accept and agree to that, then, for sure, you are not hypocritical.
We both now, however, that you (well, at least I) would never agree to such a thing, whether they have a majority, claim it's a basic right or make laws that forbid it.
Well...my point is, if we would feel we have the right to disregard it, even when it complies with the reasons given that you think allows for forbidding it, then why could another person today not feel the same about the current 'racism speech' laws?
If we, using the same reasoning, have the right to 'say' it, whether it is against a basic right or not, then so does he. If he doesn't, then so don't we.
Ofcourse, you could claim again consistency is not necessary, but then you are, in fact, purely saying: you can't say that, because it's my opinion you can't say that. As we both now, however, opinions as such (thus, without argumenting them and, indeed, using logic and consistency) are nothing more then just that; mere opinions. One opinion, on itself, isn't worth anything more then the next. Even if we are convinced our opinion is right, another person with a fully opposite opinion can be convinced *he* is right.
Now, my last point is, that facists and racists, as you yourself rightfully pointed out, would be the first to forbid speech that they seem as unallowable. Suppressing freedom of speech is THE sign of dictatorships. It boils down to saying: because I'm (or 'we', when they have majority) of the opinion that it can't be said, you may not say it.
Well, guess what, we are doing just the same.
That we do it out of reasons that we think, nay, are convinced is for the good of society does not make a distinctive difference, because ultra-rights might see it as a good thing for society too.
So, what IS the distinction, then? The only one remaining is this: that you allow freedom of speech. A facist state will never allow that, while a democratic one does (or at least can, as is proven by the USA).
I hope you see my point: making some part of free speech illegal makes us more facist and dictatorial, instead of more democratic, while it's just that, that we wanted to avoid.
halo, do you mind if I use this debate (posts) in my blog?
I'm not sure about the public nature of posts on slashdot, but I thought I would check if it's ok with you anyway.
It is becoming tiresome, indeed. While you perceive my posts as being dogmatic and not open to arguments, I rather see yours as increasingly so. I try to give arguments and counterarguments in every post, while you respond hardly to any of my questions or points.
You say it's dogmatic that I regard rights, including 'basic human rights' as written down statements that express an opinion. Well, then YOU answer it: do you think those rights do not reflect an opinion, but are somehow truelly universal in nature?
If they are, indeed, opinions, then you have to acknowledge that those opinions can change, agreed with that?
Well, then, I'll repeat my question:
In the beginning, I've said that, if you say that 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you think it is wrong and against the law, then, if the right-wing would make a majority, they could equally well deem anti-racism wrong and make laws to forbid *that*. My question then was: would you, in that case, accept that you couldn't speak about 'anti-racism' talk?
You tried to counter that by saying it is based on a 'universal' concept/basic human right... but as I pointed out, those are just a consensus on what constitutes basic human rights within our timeframe. It merely pushes my question further, but it does not answer it.
If rightwingers would have a majority in the worldpopulace, including the experts that think about what those rights constitute, and in those fantastic articles they make a lot of changes, and they add a clause that it is a basic human right to forbid anyone from making anti-racism speech... then, anti-racism talk will be against a 'basic human right' as well, and thus, following your reasoning, you should/would accept that they shut ppl up if they talk about anti-racism.
If you would not accept that reasoning in that case however - because of your own bias towards anti-racism - even when it's the same reasoning you used to forbid racism-talk, *then* you would be hypocritical.
You are on your high horse, claiming I said you are a hypocrite, while I never did, which you would have noticed, if you read my posts carefully.
Whether you are hypocrite or not, fully depends on you, and your stance and some few variables, such as: do you accept that opinions, laws and rights can change? Do you think 'basic human rights' do not reflect an opinion, but are somehow truelly universal in nature? Do you agree that you are bound by your OWN reasoning, even if that very same reasoning is, or would be, used to forbid you (when ultra-right would become the majority, for instance) to speak something you feel very strongly about, such as anti-racist speech?
Depending on these questions, you could or could not be a hypocrite, that is all I said and am saying.
You speak of consequences, but you know as well as I do, that people are responsible for their OWN deeds and actions. There has never been established a direct correlation, let alone a causality, between mere speech (not incitement or your fire-alarm example, thus) of one person, and the actions of others. Even in europe, courts have ruled that guilt-by-proxy in such a matter is not valid, and with reason. If you are not only going to hold the persons responsible that DO the illegal things, but also the persons who *might* have had an influence on their behaviour, even when it is only speech, then one can start suing everybody, really.
If courts would rule differently, then every media, including books and movies, that depicted or conveyed illegal or violent acts, could be forbidden, because it might lead to some people doing something that is illegal or damaging to somebody else. Luckily, people are deemed guilty for their actions, not their thoughts, or the expression of those thoughts on themselves (at least in the USA). For the latter, however, suddenly europe makes an exeption when it comes to 'racist speech', without giving any substantial reasons why this would merrit such a peculiar treatement.
Oh, yes,
"The lobbyists are likely to teach them that the GPL is immoral, and the typical user here would make them memorize the collected works of Richard Stallman in English class."
:-o
I *have* memorised the collective works of R.Stallman, you unsensitive clod!
What..? You mean it's not obligotary to do so from kindergarten, in your country?
"Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation). I'm not sure how this validates your point in anyway, or makes my opinion hypocrite as you've tried to make me say two or three times already in this discussion."
:-)
To merely have an opinion, can, on itself, never be hypocrite. It rather involves a contradictory discrepancy between, for example, what one says and what one does.
I was arguing that your reasoning could be deemed hypocritical if you use a reasoning to muffle up speech, whereas you would not accept the same reasoning, if others would muffle your speech up, but for things *you* think are right.
I'll try to explain one last time.
In the beginning, I've said that, if you say that 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you think it is wrong and against the law, then, if the right-wing would make a majority, they could equally well deem anti-racism wrong and make laws to forbid *that*. My question then was: would you, in that case, accept that you couldn't speak about 'anti-racism' talk?
You tried to counter that by saying it is based on a 'universal' concept/basic human right... but as I pointed out, those are just a consensus on what constitutes basic human rights within our timeframe. It merely pushes my question further, but it does not answer it.
If rightwingers would have a majority in the worldpopulace, including the experts that think about what those rights constitute, and in those fantastic articles they make a lot of changes, and they add a clause that it is a basic human right to forbid anyone from making anti-racism speech... then, anti-racism talk will be against a 'basic human right' as well, and thus, following your reasoning, you should/would accept that they shut ppl up if they talk about anti-racism.
If you would not accept that reasoning in that case however - because of your own bias towards anti-racism - even when it's the same reasoning you used to forbid racism-talk, *then* you would be hypocritical.
"Nevertheless they called it the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", and for good reason. "
;-)
LOL. Yes, they call it that. But by any name, a rose...
If the reason is 'good', or even valid remains to be seen. Surely, you will agree that calling something universal, does not mean it is, in effect, universal.
What they mean, rather, is that it constitutes a rather broad, though not total, consensus on what basic human rights should be, by the majority of the world population, in a certain timeframe. Not more, nor less. Do you agree with that?
It has nothing to do with really being universal, for which one would at least have to assert that a given human concept/attitude/behaviour/etc. would be present in all cultures and societies, in all time frames, to even try to make the claim it could be truelly universal.
There are, in that case, very limited examples where one could hope to establish that they are 'universal' human traits. Allowing (or not) free 'hate speech' is certainly not one of them, as is quite aparent in our own timeframe, even.
BTW, thnks for pasting the articles. Reading them, it's rather up to interpretation if certain forms of speech actually constitutes 'destruction of rights'. Free speech does not destruct the right of free speech of anyone else, but it does obstruct the possibility of destroying what others say. IMHO, it is better to destroy the ability of others to suppress opinions, then destroying the ability of unfeathered closure of opinions. In the first case, you have free speech, in the second, you have some form of censorship, where people are not free to make their own choice based on the 'unfeathered' information they can get.
All in all, I'm all for letting people gather information and make up there own decision - even if they come to another conclusion that you wished for... what you? Censorship tries to control, free information lets individuals decide for there own.
scuze the spellingmistakes...I just went out and I'm pretty drunk. :-)
:-)
"Well, as you note in that way everything is merely opinion, including you supposedly basic right of unfettered freedom of expression (which I consider, in your frame set, to be an over-generalisation)."
That's very true, and that's what I've been trying to convey. Whether you call it universal or not, it is not. something that is truelly universal would be something that can be found back in any time, in any society. There are some examples which may be eligible, but 'hate speech' is not one of them. It is, therefor, not universal, nor fundamental (or basic).
Freedom of expression does not hold it's power from that sort of 'basic right' neither, as I've said before. I claim the position of that is stronger, because it is more consistent, not that it is deemed a basic right by some ninkempoops who have thought long about it, and decided it's universal.
"And these rules should be debated on their merits, not only on whether or not they are all 100% consistent."
Ofcourse they should be debated on their merrits...but the merrits are also derived from the fact if they are consistent or not. That's what I've been saying: 'bad' laws are not bad because of the consistency, they are bad because of their content. If you see inconsistencies, it's an indicator that something is wrong with the law.
"So can the Internet without Freenet, and plenty of other technologies."
Not anonimously. The big factor of difference is, that with freenet there is no way to put the genie in the bottle. You can not forbid any sort of free speech, which is contrary to anything tried as yet, including the regular Net.
"Arguments like "we will break society so it can reinvent itself" are quite weak in my opinion."
they are as weak or as strong as saying that it will sacrifice society.
"Unfettered hate speech also results in restrictions on people's rights, namely on the recipients of that hate speech."
Speech is speech; it doesn't alter the factual acts, as long as it remain speech and not actions. To claim speech should be forbidden when it offends a perceived basic right, or even a mere feeling of offense, like some people are claiming, is ridiculous. Your claim is , in essence, not correct: unfettered hate speech, as long as it remains speech, does NOT actually restrict rights of people. Freedom of speech does not oblige anyone to agree with it, to listen to it, to act on it, etc. Clairly, the level of restriction, even if you would take it there is one, is far less then the restriction imposed by racism-laws that plainly forbid certain forms of speech. One can not possibly claim that allowing more speech is restricting more then not allowing some speech, because in the first case, both can argue and debate and use the fre speech, while the latter only reserves the right of speech to one group.
"Fortunately, basic human rights are not just what you, I or any dictator thinks they are. They've been thought about and then defined quite clearly. But I suppose I'll now get another "I knew you were going to say that" reply and some reasons why you consider that document to be non-authorative."
No, I'm only saying that when I actually knew you were going to say that, and this time, I didn't knew. I did went over with my thoughts before, however.
Indeed, I do not consider it authorative, in the sense that it is somehow 'universal'. I agree, as an individual, with the priciple(s) and with most 'basic rights' as described, but that is something else. What it boils down too, is that it represents the greatest common nominator that the majority of people held as an opinion (and agreed to) of what constitutes a basic right. Am am quite sure they are thought of, quite extensively, by the best experts there are...but it still represents an opinion, even though a (presumed) generally accepted one.
Which brings us back to what I said about a country: while 'the majority' in an european country may consider the current 'racism laws' a good thing, it does not make it a universal or fundamental thing. When the majority would shift to right-wingers, the same reasoning could be applied by them to muffle our free speech up - and I mean not in the 'but they could do it anyways', but in the 'remaining within the same reasoning' way.
You counter that by argumenting it's not the same, because it's (not) about a human right. But those same basic human rights were developped and agreed on, according to criteria that were and are being accepted by the majority of people, within this timeframe. If right-wingers would become the majority of the world population, including all those experts that make authoritative books on what constitutes a basic right, then one could be sure the criteria and definition (and the basic rights themselves) would probably differ from what they are today.
So, 'basic human rights' are maybe basic in a contempory way, but they certainly are not 'universal' in the strict sense. If the islam had dominated the world in the 20iest and 21st century, our basic human rights would probably be based on the teachings of the shariat, and might include some things that you wouldn't deem a basic human right.
Ultimately, ALL rights are based on opinions.
"As I said, this is not merely about my opinion.[...]"
No, and I'm not alone with my opinion neither; but that doesn't amount to anything. What should china care if some article does not find the stabibilty of the state as fundamental, if they do? I mean, if a christian or islamic figure begins to site paragraphs out of the bible or koran, to show you what rights you have and what not, would you feel compelled to abide by it?
Only if you deem those paragraphs and books to be right (or authorative) for yourself.
I tried your link but it didn't work when I klicked it, but, I'll asume that you are right and article 30 clearly and unmistakingly forbids 'hate speech', even when presented as pure speech, and not inticement.
Well, that just proves my point, actually. I do not agree with that, then. Nor does the USA, in majority. And if the majority of the world, including those experts that thought so long about it, would see it the same way...well, what then? Article 30 would be scrapped or adapted, period. The authority it has is not carved in stone, nor is it truelly universal (meaning, of all places and times), it's only power is that which it has and is bestowed upon by people whome accept it.
"I am not a law scholar, but I am indeed extremely sceptical it's possible to make laws without any exceptions or special cases whatsoever that cater to society/economy as a whole. More on that at the end of this post."
You make, again, the mistake of thinking that consistency and a general rule-of-thumb are somehow intertwined. Being consistent can be catered to specific fields, and to gen
"Well, I guess it shows I generally manage to stay out of the hornet's nest this kind of discussion always is." ;-)
...). When these rights conflict or are threatened to be abolished, then you get discussions like the one we are in. There's nothing artificial about that."
:-)
I appreciate your posts, however. IIRC, I have been impressed by some good posts of you before. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, you live in the same country as me, and we've emailed eachother before.
"Maybe a better example is slander/libel. Even if you are 100% convinced something is true, if you can't prove it and it harms someone else (indirectly), you are not allowed to publicise it."
Note, however, that in many countries it isn't forbidden to say it on itself, it's just that you have to prove it afterwards, if you are sued.
Unless clear harm can be demonstrated, as a *direct* result of the 'slander/libel' (and it's demonstrated to be just that), I would do away with those laws too. (Well, actually adapt them, thus). It's noteworthy that on this issue too, many countries have a far more tolerant policy then in our country, so there is nothing fundamental about it.
"No, it's because it is about the same rights the whole free speech stuff is about. With "fundamental" rights I meant the basic human rights (right to live, right to freedom of religion, right to food,
I already answered that one, really. The whole point that you make depends on what you consider to be basic human rights. What constitues a 'basic human right', how much basic one may make it, and how much I myself may agree with it or not, is ultimately only an opinion too. There are dictators and right-wingers enough that have a whole other opinion of basic rights. So saying "it should be so, because it is fundamental", is nothing more then saying "it should be so, because in my opinion, it is a fundamental right". But then, we can go back to my example of the chinese government, and if that is of the opinion that the stability of the state is a 'fundamental right', then you can not argument against it. You may agree to it being a basic right or not, but that has no bearing on their opinion of it.
So, I say, since opinions can differ, at least when you DO take an opinion, you should be consistent in it. Thus, if you are of the opinion 'hate speech' should be forbidden because you deem it (contrary to) a perceived fundamental right, you should also acknowledge that another person might equally forbid anti-racism, if he deems it (to be contrary to) a perceived fundamental right.
Many would disagree with that, however, making the reasoning and application hypocrite.
If, however, one is of the opinion that free speech should be absolute, then you must agree that another person can make use of that absolute free speech too.
Well, I agree another person can use that.
So, you see, consistency DOES have an intrinsic value.
"You want pure consistency within the law, I prefer consistency between the general idea of protecting society/economy and the law."
Ah yes, well, that was why I said there is no dichotomy between the two, even if some may portray it as such. You make it sound if you can not have the one without the other. I however, claim that you can protect society/economy, even when remaining consistent; the two are not mutually exclusive. If there IS a contradiction between the two in some instance, it's indicative that the law is bad, not that it should be less consistent.
I sometimes feel that people think 'generalistation' and 'consistency' are the same things, while they are not, at all. Lwas may be bad because they are (over)generalising, NOT because they are consistent. Take you example of "all mamals should be treated equal' and then saying; you can't be consistent, because you treat animals different then humans. Well, yes, but is it a bad law because it's not consistent, or is it a bad law, bacause it was generalisin