It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

page: 21
35
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: icanteven

Actually it your position is which is approaching from the abstract. All you can do is speak about it in metaphor and abstractly. No, words and ideas spawn nothing. We can place any combination of letters and words and observe it have no effect on its surroundings, let alone "span concrete realites".




posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: icanteven

Actually it your position is which is approaching from the abstract. All you can do is speak about it in metaphor and abstractly. No, words and ideas spawn nothing. We can place any combination of letters and words and observe it have no effect on its surroundings, let alone "span concrete realites".

Hmmm... the word stop painted on a sign has an effect on its surroundings. At least sometimes; unless you live in Georgia, then it's only a suggestion.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: LockNLoad
Death is a part of life, but that does not negate the acknowledgment of the life before death.


Of course not but you said it yourself one "right" negates the other.


I'm pretty sure I never said "negates" I think I said violates.

The right still exists it just being violated, this just shows a use of force/strength/might over the right. It doesn't negate the existence of the right to life it just violates it.


This brings us back to what I call "innate rights" these are things that are a part of us and all living things in nature.

We and all living things in nature have life, without food we would not have life, without protection from nature that tries to kill us we would not have life.


I get it but it just seems like calling it a right or trying to set it apart/above is superfluous.


The ability to live 'is' above, if there is no ability to live then all that's left is dead.


Let me try this (I'll probably dick it up)... We and all other living things have the innate function of life, in order to maintain that function we need to be free to find the food to support the function of living, and free to find/use protection from negative elements that would stop our function of life.

Now is it OK if another living thing denies us any of the 3 innate things I listed, while this other living thing operates outside of the 3 innate functions? (not killing to continue to live, not killing to protect it food source, not killing to protect its shelter)

I use killing in the food and shelter example as an extreme, it could be any form of denying us food or shelter.


The wrench in the works is that you don't need to be alive and it is actually neither good nor bad for something to deny us any of those 3 things.


To say that any other living thing doesn't need to live is a value judgment on your part, nature shows that life just 'is', whether we want it to live or not is neither here or there.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: icanteven

Hope you don't mind me jumping in...

Your statement here "Hmmm... the word stop painted on a sign has an effect on its surroundings. At least sometimes; unless you live in Georgia, then it's only a suggestion."

Shows that words (I'll even include ideas) only have power if the person allows the words/ideas to have power. In this case of the stop sign, people that stop know that there is the force of law that will enforce (give power) to the word, others don't care about the enforcement so that word has no power over them (this does not negate any consequences). so the same word in the same context has power over some and no power over others.
edit on 21-4-2017 by LockNLoad because: typo



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad
I'm pretty sure I never said "negates" I think I said violates.

I said it.


The right still exists it just being violated, this just shows a use of force/strength/might over the right. It doesn't negate the existence of the right to life it just violates it.

If you insist on calling it that then, I guess so.


The ability to live 'is' above, if there is no ability to live then all that's left is dead.

No, it actually isn't.


To say that any other living thing doesn't need to live is a value judgment on your part, nature shows that life just 'is', whether we want it to live or not is neither here or there.

I meant any living thing. Nothing "needs" to live.

You are right, what any one person wants is irrelevant, so is their insistence on calling it a right.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

If a stick of dynamite is a dud then lighting the fuse will only lead to a short fizzle.

If it is live then lighting the fuse leads to an explosion.

To say the fuse plays no part is incorrect.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I'm sorry but your statement, "No, it actually isn't." Tells me I will never be able to get you to understand my point of view. The statement insinuates that life means nothing to you or has very little value in your view of nature.

If I'm wrong in my assessment please let me know.

Life is very valuable to me, and I'm fairly sure that life is valuable to nature too, if it wasn't valuable to nature everything would have died off millions of years ago due the entropy and decay.
edit on 21-4-2017 by LockNLoad because: typo



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

And how does that relate to the subject of words and ideas???

2nd



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
I think we’ve all heard the argument “freedom speech, but not freedom from consequences” from some obscurantist or other.

But baked into this piece of amoral hubris is the criticism that the speaker should expect certain consequences for his speech: that if only the speaker had shut up, had not said anything at all, he would not have met with the unfortunate consequences, whatever those may be.

From this we are one step closer to advocating for censorship.


WHAT???

Freedom of Speech..Is freedom of government intervention and prosecution..

Freedom from violence and illegal acts speaks for itself..

We should not expect Government to protect free speech by stepping in and returning an iPhone to a teenage girl who just told her Mother to go eff herself. Nor should we expect Government to arrest the teen.

WTF are you confused about?

Speech has always had consequence. That is kind of the whole purpose of speech..to communicate.

Consequences are part of reality itself...It's what children are taught.

Arguing for speech without consequences is one part child and one part turrets...and no part rational.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad
I'm sorry but your statement, "No, it actually isn't." Tells me I will never be able to get you to understand my point of view. The statement insinuates that life means nothing to you or has very little value in your view of nature.

Actually it means that you are giving life an importance that even nature doesn't give it. Like people who give words an importance that they may not have.


If I'm wrong in my assessment please let me know.

I'm open to a good argument. "Life is a right because it is important because it is a right" is circular logic.


Life is very valuable to me, and I'm fairly sure that life is valuable to nature too, if it wasn't valuable to nature everything would have died off millions of years ago due the entropy and decay.

You are assuming nature cares.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




Freedom of Speech..Is freedom of government intervention and prosecution..


False. Freedom of speech is an ethical principle. A series of misapprehensions arise from that one misapprehension.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad
And how does that relate to the subject of words and ideas???

It relates to the idea

Shows that words (I'll even include ideas) only have power if the person allows the words/ideas to have power.

which means that saying ideas have power refers to the effect of ideas when they reach those who will act on them.

OP's argument might be more accurate if it was "words may or may not cause people to react" but it seems he would rather call people superstitious for acknowledging this fact while not really being able to put forth a solid argument. Oh well.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Indigo5




Freedom of Speech..Is freedom of government intervention and prosecution..


False. Freedom of speech is an ethical principle. A series of misapprehensions arise from that one misapprehension.


Codified in the Constitution...for effs sake..

And your retort is irrelevant to both your OP premise and my own post..

You engage in red-herring nonsense speak when challenged in a substantive way..

And your preferred shelter that you repeatedly retreat to is semantics..

Speech does and should have consequences...It is a lesson we teach our children for a reason..

You are free to speak anything you like, you are not free from consequence...

Murder, violence, government oppression are all illegal in the USA and are not relevant to the discussion of consequences..

That is simple and not "misapprehensions" that lead to "series of misapprehensions"..

LOL



edit on 21-4-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:00 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




OP's argument might be more accurate if it was "words may or may not cause people to react" but it seems he would rather call people superstitious for acknowledging this fact while not really being able to put forth a solid argument.


It's superstitious because you're bestowing supernatural attributes such as "power" on objects that have none.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5




Codified in the Constitution...for effs sake..

And your retort is irrelevant to both your OP premise and my own post..

You engage in red-herring nonsense speak when challenged in a substantive way..

And your preferred shelter that you repeatedly retreat to is semantics..

Speech does and should have consequences...It is a lesson we teach our children for a reason..

You are free to speak anything you like, you are not free from consequence...

Murder, violence, government oppression are all illegal in the USA and are not relevant to the discussion of consequences..

That is simple and not "misapprehensions" that lead to "series of misapprehensions"..

LOL



What piffle. Yeah you teach your kids superstitious nonsense, that they can be bruised and injured by articulated sounds and scratches on paper. Look how good that works out.

So what if it is codified in the constitution?

Yes I am free from the consequence on the basis there is no consequence. What I am not free from is your superstitious nonsense you would like to pass down to your children. That's a consequence of your idiocy, your naivety, your religiosity, not my speech.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: LockNLoad
a reply to: icanteven

Hope you don't mind me jumping in...

Your statement here "Hmmm... the word stop painted on a sign has an effect on its surroundings. At least sometimes; unless you live in Georgia, then it's only a suggestion."

Shows that words (I'll even include ideas) only have power if the person allows the words/ideas to have power. In this case of the stop sign, people that stop know that there is the force of law that will enforce (give power) to the word, others don't care about the enforcement so that word has no power over them (this does not negate any consequences). so the same word in the same context has power over some and no power over others.


Since this is a theoretical conversation at this point, I'll bite.

I feel some Buddhism coming on, since we're delving into the idea of causality and Karma. To be clear, I'm using Karma in the sense of all actions create some kind of reaction, even if you don't see it immediately, as opposed to the popular but wrong definition that Karma is some kind of cosmic bank account.

And I don't think I can respond to you without evoking the Hobbes idea of the social contract. Why does the social contract play a role? Because even the law has force even in the absence of someone there (the police) to enforce it. We agree as a society to behave in a certain way because we see words painted on a red sign. While some people will flout the law, they are breaking the social contract. Now, the social contract is philosophical in nature, so it's not a universal law that I'm going to argue about.

Causality comes into play because the person who ignores the sign is also dismissing the effort of the person who came up with the concept of stop; and the centuries of codification of what those particular symbols arranged in a formation that we read use as a universal cue to cease movement. The result of the law breakers ignoring the words could be a fender bender or nothing at all. We don't know, since the action (or not) will follow his breaking of the social contract.

What I'm not able to do is what some folks on this thread are able to do, which is treat the formation of words or writing words or speaking words as something that occurs in a petri dish in a vacuum. Semiotics is the study of symbols and their interpretation, and that must enter into this discussion as well.

If the discussion is about the swish of a pencil as the holder moves it across the paper, then that could even have some causality to it. You could be creating a minute amount of wind that will create a domino effect that results in a hyper-sensitive person getting distracted by the soft breeze, resulting in running the stop sign. I don't think that's likely, but it's not impossible. Even thoughts require energy to produce.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

I'm open to a good argument. "Life is a right because it is important because it is a right" is circular logic.


life is important because nature thinks it's important, I make this 'assumption' on my observation of the struggles that life in nature goes through to live.


You are assuming nature cares.


Yes I am.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
It's superstitious because you're bestowing supernatural attributes such as "power" on objects that have none.

Nobody is bestowing anything. It is a way to describe observational data.



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: LockNLoad

If nature thought life was important then wouldn't it make it easier for life instead forcing it to struggle?

Then again maybe nature isn't the one that makes nature struggle? Maybe it is indifferent?



posted on Apr, 21 2017 @ 03:23 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik




Nobody is bestowing anything. It is a way to describe observational data.


Using metaphor is a way to describe something figuratively, not literally.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join