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.

 

You are Never Guilty by Association if you Defend Human Rights

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I have defended the free speech rights of the world’s worst and most hated individuals, here and elsewhere. This odious list includes neo-nazis, Islamists, Hitler, pedophiles, the KKK, and Kathy Griffin.

I do this because I believe in human rights in general, and as the basis of human rights, free speech in particular.

The typical response to my defence is also the easiest. They apply guilt by association, the fatuous belief that, by my defending the human rights of the most hated, I am somehow complicit in their crimes.

Both the stupidity and laziness of this technique should be obvious to any reasonable onlooker—human rights apply to humans—but it becomes the go-to fallacy for those unwilling to argue in good faith, and would much rather persuade by lies and sophistry.

This is unfortunate because those who refuse to apply human rights to all humans, including the most detestable, do not believe in human rights. They have erected upon the shifting sands they call their mind some botched version thereof, where feelings and dogma dictate when and where human rights are applied.

Ironically, the world’s worst individuals often operate under the same beliefs as the fallacious: reserving rights and privileges to those they approve of, while denying them to those they do not. The fallacious are not guilty by association here—far from it—but are guilty of supporting censorship and the infringing of human rights for they disapprove of, just like those they hate.

- LesMis




posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Agree 100%.

As to why this happens, probably too much lead in the drinking water.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It all comes down to that often mis-attributed quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

When you silence someone we are all diminished. Sometimes things that are unpopular need to be spoken.
Sometimes this is to provoke thought.
Sometimes this is to reveal how despicable the speaker is.
No matter what the speaker is saying, you will learn something. Sometimes you learn the speaker is an idiot and sometimes they are brilliant, but you gain nothing from imposing silence on them.

There is another phrase that I've always loved. "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

edit on 18-6-2018 by BomSquad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 03:05 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Very true. Even though you are alluding to some posters on here the worst ones for this technique are the MSM and Governments. It's because they want to shut down discussion and reasonable debate. The thing is with the MSM and governments doing this it enters into the majority of the population psyche. A good example is the furore about political nationalists.
ie. nationalists= nazis=oppression= concentration camps= genocides. So hate and make nationalists illegal.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BomSquad
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It all comes down to that often mis-attributed quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

When you silence someone we are all diminished. Sometimes things that are unpopular need to be spoken.
Sometimes this is to provoke thought.
Sometimes this is to reveal how despicable the speaker is.
No matter what the speaker is saying, you will learn something. Sometimes you learn the speaker is an idiot and sometimes they are brilliant, but you gain nothing from imposing silence on them.


Absolutely right. By silencing those we disagree with, we deny the rights of the speaker, and also those who wish to listen. We also do truth itself an injustice by doubting its strength and denying others to witness it grapple with falsity and evil.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: BomSquad
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It all comes down to that often mis-attributed quote, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

When you silence someone we are all diminished. Sometimes things that are unpopular need to be spoken.
Sometimes this is to provoke thought.
Sometimes this is to reveal how despicable the speaker is.
No matter what the speaker is saying, you will learn something. Sometimes you learn the speaker is an idiot and sometimes they are brilliant, but you gain nothing from imposing silence on them.

There is another phrase that I've always loved. "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"


nice sentiment and I "generally" agree, but I think it depends on how much power is held by the person doing the speaking....what "good thing" was learned by the German people when Hitler freely spoke?.....or jim jones, pol pot, stalin, etc...or for that matter, any cultish figure throughout history?.......



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

Those regimes engaged in brutal censorship of dissenting views.Without allowing dissenting views, an orthodoxy grows.


edit on 18-6-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthropeCan a right to deny others their rights exist as a right?

If I deny a pedophile the right to speak to children or associate with them, am I denying them their rights or protecting the rights of children?

If I deny the KKK the right to speak at an event, am I denying them their rights or protecting the rights of non-Whites in attendance to not be defamed or threatened?

I get your point, but it's a much more complex issue than just who has what rights. Whenever protecting someones human rights, denies others their own human rights, the lines get blurred and rightly so.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: LesMisanthropeCan a right to deny others their rights exist as a right?

If I deny a pedophile the right to speak to children or associate with them, am I denying them their rights or protecting the rights of children?

If I deny the KKK the right to speak at an event, am I denying them their rights or protecting the rights of non-Whites in attendance to not be defamed or threatened?

I get your point, but it's a much more complex issue than just who has what rights. Whenever protecting someones human rights, denies others their own human rights, the lines get blurred and rightly so.



So long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others, you would be denying their rights, yes.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 03:58 PM
link   
By correcting the misconception of what Trump calls fake news, I have been accused of being guilty by association, spreading disinformation and fake news here and elsewhere.

So yeah it happens a lot, deliberately or not.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Too simple an answer and I think you likely get what I meant.

Rights need to be tempered with common sense, not just taken as carte blanche to allow anything and everything.

Are you saying in fact that you put zero limits on speech, no matter the speaker or the intended audience or target of the speech?

Do the targets of hate groups for instance, groups like the neo-Nazi's or the KKK, have the right to feel secure and safe in public locations? If the KKK is in a park promoting their hate, it does not in any way deny those who are not White their right to feel safe in the park?

You may want it to be that simple to make your point easier, but it is not. Not all speech is protected nor should it be.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: jimmyx

Those regimes engaged in brutal censorship of dissenting views.Without allowing dissenting views, an orthodoxy grows.



well of course...but in the beginning you have to have a large enough group of people that buy into it, before a "threat" to freedoms can be carried out without repercussions....as those repercussions fail to materialize, it emboldens and strengthens the leader of these cults, and the first thing to go IS dissent...man's history is littered with cultish groups, as well as the hundreds of millions of deaths of "believers" that have inhabited them.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

Apologies for the brief answer.



Are you saying in fact that you put zero limits on speech, no matter the speaker or the intended audience or target of the speech?


Yes, I put zero limits on speech. All speech should be protected. Can you name one person or body who you would trust to put limits on what can and cannot be said?




Do the targets of hate groups for instance, groups like the neo-Nazi's or the KKK, have the right to feel secure and safe in public locations? If the KKK is in a park promoting their hate, it does not in any way deny those who are not White their right to feel safe in the park?


Yes, that's why police often march alongside the KKK and their rallies in the US, because they have the right to espouse their views without fear of retaliation.

Have you ever heard of the famous Skokie case? Nazis wanted to march down a main street in Skokie Illinois, which was a place with a large population of German/Jewish immigrants. The head of the ACLU at the time, himself a Jewish immigrant from Germany, defended the Nazis in press and in the court despite the pushback. His reasoning was that to limit the rights of those you hate, you limit your own rights and the rights of the most marginalized at the same time.


edit on 18-6-2018 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx




well of course...but in the beginning you have to have a large enough group of people that buy into it, before a "threat" to freedoms can be carried out without repercussions....as those repercussions fail to materialize, it emboldens and strengthens the leader of these cults, and the first thing to go IS dissent...man's history is littered with cultish groups, as well as the hundreds of millions of deaths of "believers" that have inhabited them.


And they all made dissent punishable. I'm not sure why someone would want to adopt the very same tactics of these groups. But, given a culture of free speech, these groups dissolve over time, or otherwise fail to materialize.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BomSquad

What about if you have noting nice to say, don't say it at all?

I understand that free speech is a fundamental aspect of a functioning society, the Greeks loved free speech so much, they pretty much created theater and classic opera, the Romans also followed suit in this, and allowed people to have their own speakers corner and preach their ideas and even let gladiators speak their mind before they were put to death.

But it's all situational to be honest. If you go around speaking your mind and what you think without some sort of filter or manners, then you can be seen as just a rambling idiot, or someone who is an outspoken weirdo. So all I have to say is, if you want to speak your mind, all power to you, but don't expect people to not judge what you have to say, or don't get offended if they fight back.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 04:41 PM
link   
This has far too many degrees of nuance to be black or white. A free-for-all approach leaves nearly all disgruntled at the end, aside from the truly sadistic (think of it as the FS equivalent of gorging) The aim should be for an amicable balance between all (the equivalent of moderation)



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah




This has far too many degrees of nuance to be black or white. A free-for-all approach leaves nearly all disgruntled at the end, aside from the truly sadistic (think of it as the FS equivalent of gorging) The aim should be for an amicable balance between all (the equivalent of moderation)


It's not a free-for-all approach so much as it is a choice not to censor others. It just means we prefer to temper our own speech according to personal choice, not force or coercion.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp




What about if you have noting nice to say, don't say it at all?


It hasn't gone anywhere.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   
Until they recondition society, guilty by association is the norm. I hear tails of this all the time up here, word spreads fast amongst the public.

You know, error correction does not have amongst in it. I'm used to scientific words but this word is commonly used by us Yoopers. There has to be a conspiracy in that somewhere.



posted on Jun, 18 2018 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
I get your point, but it's a much more complex issue than just who has what rights. Whenever protecting someones human rights, denies others their own human rights, the lines get blurred and rightly so.


I've heard it said that, "Rights are what other people allow you to have."
Also, as far as free speech goes, "You can say whatever you want as long as nobody cares."



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join