Freedom of Speech and Freedom from Consequences.

originally posted by: daskakik
The points were that:

There doesn't have to be a holocaust for there to be someone controlling another with lies.

I agree. But there does have to be at least a single historical example that is globally widespread in belief for most of the global population to know about, lest we will allow lies and deception to oppress. Are you saying the Holocaust is being portrayed as "that" unjustly and cannot be used for comparison purposes, OR are you saying that an event like the Holocaust ought NOT be needed for people to know that lies ad deception can be used to achieve power and do lots of harm?

Nobody said that the listener could not resist. They could even believe for a while and then stop.

In relation to the topic of this thread, what then makes speech alone so dangerous?

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
The original point by dask was convincing people to believe and follow you, thus giving you the power and control like what Hitler and Jim Jones did.

Does this not indicate a weakness within those who allowed or permitted Hitler or Jim Jones to rise in power to a reasonable degree?

Even what you said does not establish that words carry power.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

The holocaust can be used as an example but so can any insignificant example.

The point was that people submit themselves to control. We were trying to point out that the idea of the "power of words" doesn't lie in the words themselves but in the power the believer grants to the controller over their actions.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

You have missed what I said. I asked Les if he could be swayed and he agreed that stupid people could be swayed. Please follow the conversation.
And you haven't said anything about children living in such worlds as in 1984 and Truman Show.

originally posted by: daskakik
The point was that people submit themselves to control. We were trying to point out that the idea of the "power of words" doesn't lie in the words themselves but in the power the believer grants to the controller over their actions.

I agree people submit themselves to control, but for different reasons. I submit myself to the control of the country I live in because I believe overall most things are decent.

As an adult, I don't use the excuse of still believing and still being submitted by that belief myself to believing everything I was told as a child was true then or now. For example "Young Dark Ghost, always listen to the media, they are objective and know best!" is not something I still believe to be true.

Yes, there ARE probably some things I still believe from my childhood that I have not reexamined as an adult but that's because I have not felt the need to or been pressured to do so by others.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
You have missed what I said. I asked Les if he could be swayed and he agreed that stupid people could be swayed. Please follow the conversation.

I do apologise for not looking back on your whole conversation and expecting you to know that I had not. I am currently reading and writing in various threads at once. If I did look back at every members conversation before replying, I would never reply. That is my weakness and my problem, but I am working on it.

Have I argued against your contention (that stupid people can be swayed) to you directly since I last joined in? I don't believe I did? So why are you mentioning it?

And you haven't said anything about children living in such worlds as in 1984 and Truman Show.

Because it does not relate to the point I was trying to make to you. If you want me to discuss my views on that then I am happy to. Just clarify why you want me to share my views on children growing up in those types of scenarios. (Otherwise I will just be telling you what you already know.)

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Just in case you don't know, all my statements are from the point of view of the "natural man" in a state of perfect freedom, where he/she can choose to do as he pleases, as do other animals in nature.

I do believe in a supreme force (God), but I have been trying very hard to keep this secular, and from the natural view, nature has not given man dominion over the other animals, all animals in their perfect state of nature can/should be considered equal in (I don't know any other way to say it) their right to life.

I the perfect state of nature, any and all actions in the exercising of innate right are appropriate. Yes you may very well violate another creatures right to life but you do have the right to life also. As in my example a few pages back, if a bear saw me as food and attempted to eat me that would be fully with in it's rights, but its right to seek food does not negate my right to life (self defense).

In a perfect state of nature it really does come down to 'might makes right', so there really is no "my life is more important then the bears or the bears life is more important then mine, it just comes down to who doesn't get eaten. LOL

a reply to: Dark Ghost

You are still missing the point. It isn't to say that people submit themselves to control or why they do.

The point was to clarify what the phrase "words have power" actually means. Contrary to what the OP proposes, that people think it means that they have some magical power, I was saying that it means that people use words to direct the actions of others.

You said people could resist. That is true but that doesn't mean that when they don't resist that the phrase above is applicable in the context that I proposed.

Such a great thread!

Words 'only' have power if the people hearing the words give them power.

If I call somebody a little b#*ch, and they ignore my words and move on, my words have had no power over this person.

If I call somebody a little b#*ch, and they punch me in the face, then 'they' gave my words power over their emotions and self control.

This same principal works with large groups.

originally posted by: LockNLoad
Just in case you don't know, all my statements are from the point of view of the "natural man" in a state of perfect freedom, where he/she can choose to do as he pleases, as do other animals in nature.

How does the concept of the "natural man" relate to rights though? We probably both agree on everything except the definition of what a right is. I thought I cleared this up in my definition of "right" earlier, but obviously there is still confusion.

I do believe in a supreme force (God), but I have been trying very hard to keep this secular, and from the natural view, nature has not given man dominion over the other animals, all animals in their perfect state of nature can/should be considered equal in (I don't know any other way to say it) their right to life.

If nature has not given man dominion over other animals, why are you stating you have a right to kill and then eat animals according to nature itself? Can humans survive without eating other animals? Yes, they can. (I am NOT a vegetarian or a vegan btw, I am playing devil's advocate) In this example of yours, are there other options to explore for food that don't involve killing and eating another sentient creature? If an advanced alien race landed on earth tomorrow and started hunting humans, would you feel they are morally justified (even if you do complain and resist their attempts) in doing so?

I the perfect state of nature, any and all actions in the exercising of innate right are appropriate. Yes you may very well violate another creatures right to life but you do have the right to life also. As in my example a few pages back, if a bear saw me as food and attempted to eat me that would be fully with in it's rights, but its right to seek food does not negate my right to life (self defense).

Hmm, do you really believe the state of nature on planet Earth is perfect? In what sense, a reasonable, moral or fair sense? You should be very careful about the argument at the end this last paragraph of your reply. You are advocating that if I am a homeless person with no food or money, I am within my right to break into a home, kill the family pet and then eat it (assuming the homeless guy likes that type of meat) because if I didn't, my survival would be threatened.

In a perfect state of nature it really does come down to 'might makes right', so there really is no "my life is more important then the bears or the bears life is more important then mine, it just comes down to who doesn't get eaten. LOL

So then why do we humans even consider morality as a worthy topic of discussion, and worth taking seriously before we do things? Is it possible that humans are not strictly a part of nature in the way you are presenting them to be? If so, why include human and animal in an example about rights?

originally posted by: daskakik
You are still missing the point. It isn't to say that people submit themselves to control or why they do.

The point was to clarify what the phrase "words have power" actually means. Contrary to what the OP proposes, that people think it means that they have some magical power, I was saying that it means that people use words to direct the actions of others.

If words don't have a magical metaphysical power to force others to act (as you just implied and which I would agree with), then how does banning them, even some of them, prevent people from taking the things still allowed to be said as being reason enough to act? When does it end? It doesn't and won't end. You cannot prevent violence by banning words. You are better off teaching people not to believe words have an inherent power that is reason enough to react violently from.

You said people could resist. That is true but that doesn't mean that when they don't resist that the phrase above is applicable in the context that I proposed.

It really does seem to be circular logic. Words have no power, but they can still influence people. People have no power because they are influenced by words of those who do have power saying words that ensure they believe they have no power to disagree.

Sorry, I still don't agree.

a reply to: LockNLoad

Good example but your inclusion of violence will make some people react a certain way to it. That's significant given the topic.

But, an example where you try to sell someone a bridge, which isn't yours, if they ignore your words, they are powerless. Now, if they believe you and give you money, they have given your words power over them and their better judgement. In this case you have not only controlled them but you are clearly the "bad" guy.

Of course they are to blame but you are not blameless.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I never said anything about banning any words.

I also didn't say that people have no power

I'm not even sure what you are arguing. All I did was propose a definition of what is meant by "words have power".

originally posted by: daskakik
But, an example where you try to sell someone a bridge, which isn't yours, if they ignore your words, they are powerless. Now, if they believe you and give you money, they have given your words power over them and their better judgement. In this case you have not only controlled them but you are clearly the "bad" guy.

Why is the fraudster then considered powerful? Because he made money from it and this victim might tell others to do the same, despite the victim not getting his bridge?

In THIS example, the fraudster is taking advantage of somebody that is stupid. Morally wrong, but reasonable to do if it ends up giving him loads of money...otherwise, what power has he gained?

If the personal values of the fraudster are not compromised in doing what he is doing, then why should his actions be deemed unreasonable? JUST because what he is doing is illegal and seems very immoral? How does this relate to power?

originally posted by: daskakik
All I did was propose a definition of what is meant by "words have power".

A definition that you have not explained. What is YOUR definition of the term "words have power"? Not the OP, but yours?

a reply to: daskakik

Agreed, there can be consequences to using words, some good some bad. Although just for the sake of argument (I agree we you) been labeled the bad guy is an subjective point of view. If the person that sold the bridge has a family or others he will use the money to provide for, is he still the bad guy from their point of view???

a reply to: Dark Ghost

He isn't "powerful". He just controlled someone's actions.

Moral judgement is up to the individual hearing the story.

I might not consider someone who punches another calling him names bad but that is the claim of the OP. Both are just opinions.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

Actually I did. I said that it means that people use words to control the actions of others.

a reply to: LockNLoad

Moral judgment is relative.

The OP says that there should not be consequences.

originally posted by: daskakik

I'm not sure if you are aware, but I already challenged the author of this thread in relation to his opening post, saying that I disagreed with his expectation that ALL societies should inherently appreciate the value of freedom of speech.

I don't think his OP is unreasonable within the context of a civilised society. His OP is unreasonable because it expects all societies to be inherently civilised in regard to Freedom Of Speech while only considering HIS society's perspective.

Does that clear up my position?