There already exists private control of nuclear weaponry, yet we are still here...
The means to destroy everything exists, and will continue to exist, since it will always be possible to do what has already been done...
Even a reaction is a form of expression. Choose wisely any expression, because the consequences of a reaction are no less than the consequences of an action.
Topic: Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression - page 3. (Read 2796 times)
Forsooth, it could be said, “The greatest of restraints is that placed upon reaction, for it dictates all others.”
There are consequences to free expression, not limits...
If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.
False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...
1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.
Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.
I like your explanation.
But would that help?
Free speech but everyone has to live up to the consequences? Not sure if that works because it kinda sounds like an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind
That's the only way it can work, nowhere in nature can there be an action without a consequence; be it positive, neutral, or negative from the perspective of the actor. If you don't want a negative consequence, choose your words more wisely. The problem with no freedom of expression lies where the root of expression will continue to exist in non-verbal thought. People don't have to express how they feel, but restricting expression eliminates the opportunity to prevent a bad outcome by eliminating the most reliable warning signs...
One could also proceed to crucify any that would give its opinion regard sufficient for reaction.
Only when you introduce external factors like government does this become any serious threat... If this were an individual action, they could just as easily proceed to crucify randomly without any provocation, and would likely be dealt the hand of natural selection...
However, without state, there exists private control of nuclear weaponry—a means to a reduction of pseudo-intellectual feeling.
There are consequences to free expression, not limits...
If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.
False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...
1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.
Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.
I like your explanation.
But would that help?
Free speech but everyone has to live up to the consequences? Not sure if that works because it kinda sounds like an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind
That's the only way it can work, nowhere in nature can there be an action without a consequence; be it positive, neutral, or negative from the perspective of the actor. If you don't want a negative consequence, choose your words more wisely. The problem with no freedom of expression lies where the root of expression will continue to exist in non-verbal thought. People don't have to express how they feel, but restricting expression eliminates the opportunity to prevent a bad outcome by eliminating the most reliable warning signs...
One could also proceed to crucify any that would give its opinion regard sufficient for reaction.
Only when you introduce external factors like government does this become any serious threat... If this were an individual action, they could just as easily proceed to crucify randomly without any provocation, and would likely be dealt the hand of natural selection...
There are consequences to free expression, not limits...
If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.
False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...
1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.
Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.
I like your explanation.
But would that help?
Free speech but everyone has to live up to the consequences? Not sure if that works because it kinda sounds like an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind
That's the only way it can work, nowhere in nature can there be an action without a consequence; be it positive, neutral, or negative from the perspective of the actor. If you don't want a negative consequence, choose your words more wisely. The problem with no freedom of expression lies where the root of expression will continue to exist in non-verbal thought. People don't have to express how they feel, but restricting expression eliminates the opportunity to prevent a bad outcome by eliminating the most reliable warning signs...
One could also proceed to crucify any that would lend its opinion regard sufficient for reaction.
There are consequences to free expression, not limits...
If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.
False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...
1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.
Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.
I like your explanation.
But would that help?
Free speech but everyone has to live up to the consequences? Not sure if that works because it kinda sounds like an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind
That's the only way it can work, nowhere in nature can there be an interaction without a consequence; be it positive, neutral, or negative from the perspective of the actor. If somebody doesn't want a negative consequence, they should choose their words more wisely or considerately. The problem with no freedom of expression lies where the root of expression will continue to exist in non-verbal thought. People don't have to express how they feel, but restricting expression eliminates the opportunity to prevent a bad outcome by eliminating the most reliable warning signs...
There are consequences to free expression, not limits...
If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.
False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...
1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.
Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.
I like your explanation.
But would that help?
Free speech but everyone has to live up to the consequences? Not sure if that works because it kinda sounds like an eye for an eye and the whole world would be blind
There are consequences to free expression, not limits...
If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.
False on many different levels. Unless your definition of violence requires "malicious intent", then it's true. However, I'm interpreting the context of violence in your post as meaning physical force. Never say never...
1. A threat is one form of expression which justifies the initiation of violence, when the issuer of that threat has the ability, means, and opportunity to carry out that threat in the moment it's issued. The recipient of that threat doesn't have any duty or obligation to wait for the threat to materialize before eliminating that threat by force.
2. Mental abuse has been shown to cause irreparable psychological damage, therefore when a person is being mentally abused, they have the right to initiate violence whenever violence is the most reasonable way to stop that damaging form of abuse; unlike a physical assault, they most likely have the opportunity to retreat, but if retreat is not possible, violence is justified to stop any form of damaging abuse.
Consequences do not mean violence in my post however, consequences represent any form of reaction. When people use expression without consideration of the likely reaction, they open themselves up to retaliation and sometimes get more than they expected. Without consideration, expression can be a dangerous personal liability.
That would be pretty interesting to know.
he was member of the left wing and a good friend with a jew till 1990?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieudonné_M'bala_M'bala
Everything after that... well you kinda could describe him as a jew hating nazi
he was member of the left wing and a good friend with a jew till 1990?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieudonné_M'bala_M'bala
Everything after that... well you kinda could describe him as a jew hating nazi
If, however, you are actually being (non-hypothetically) hostile to me with your post, then yes, you are actually being a jerk since the insult is uncalled for.
And that IMO is the crux of the whole issue.
I agree the initiation of insults is uncalled for, and insulting another culture is just plain mean, but the next question is always so what? If someone wants to be a jerk and insult people for no reason, you're free to do so. Violence is never an appropriate response.
Violence is never an appropriate response.
There are consequences to free expression, not limits...
If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.
There are consequences to free expression, not limits...
Is Pope still free? Police didn't arrested him yet?
a though i want to add to this discussion because im agreeing that there are limits to freedom of expression.
in germany (and i believe in most western civilizations) there are laws against mobbing.
this problem started mainly in schools and social networks, but it is part of the whole society.
what we have now with charlie hebdo is in my opinion "mobbing" on just a much greater scale.
human rights - and freedom with it - is the most important archievement of mankind, but there exist a limit and it is reached when we are limiting the freedom/rights of others.
so the question is can we limit the freedom/human rights of others by just expressing what we want?
i think yes, a human being or group that gets mobbed/insulted/harassed/discrimated against by speech is not equal in the sense of human rights.
but i also would agree saying "you asshole" would probaly not be a case of that...
in germany (and i believe in most western civilizations) there are laws against mobbing.
this problem started mainly in schools and social networks, but it is part of the whole society.
what we have now with charlie hebdo is in my opinion "mobbing" on just a much greater scale.
human rights - and freedom with it - is the most important archievement of mankind, but there exist a limit and it is reached when we are limiting the freedom/rights of others.
so the question is can we limit the freedom/human rights of others by just expressing what we want?
i think yes, a human being or group that gets mobbed/insulted/harassed/discrimated against by speech is not equal in the sense of human rights.
but i also would agree saying "you asshole" would probaly not be a case of that...
Quote from: Dale Wilkerson, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy link=http://www.iep.utm.edu/nietzsch/#H4
Nietzsche’s philosophy contemplates the meaning of values and their significance to human existence. Given that no absolute values exist, in Nietzsche’s worldview, the evolution of values on earth must be measured by some other means. How then shall they be understood? The existence of a value presupposes a value-positing perspective, and values are created by human beings (and perhaps other value-positing agents) as aids for survival and growth. Because values are important for the well being of the human animal, because belief in them is essential to our existence, we oftentimes prefer to forget that values are our own creations and to live through them as if they were absolute. For these reasons, social institutions enforcing adherence to inherited values are permitted to create self-serving economies of power, so long as individuals living through them are thereby made more secure and their possibilities for life enhanced. Nevertheless, from time to time the values we inherit are deemed no longer suitable and the continued enforcement of them no longer stands in the service of life. To maintain allegiance to such values, even when they no longer seem practicable, turns what once served the advantage to individuals to a disadvantage, and what was once the prudent deployment of values into a life denying abuse of power. When this happens the human being must reactivate its creative, value-positing capacities and construct new values.
Quote from: Leo Tolstoy, Path of Life (1909) link=http://izquotes.com/quote/273442
An arrogant person considers himself perfect. This is the chief harm of arrogance. It interferes with a person’s main task in life—becoming a better person.
If, however, you are actually being (non-hypothetically) hostile to me with your post, then yes, you are actually being a jerk since the insult is uncalled for.
And that IMO is the crux of the whole issue.
I don't disagree with your assessment that being a jerk causes more problems than not being a jerk, but given the freedom to be a jerk, some people are going to be a jerk. I take the line that it'd be great if everyone acted with kindness and empathy towards everyone else, but some people are just awful people, and it's their right to be awful so as long as they don't physically harm another person or their property.
I must say that your tolerance of my "being a jerk" was pretty good (although you couldn't help yourself in calling me a *jerk* which is in itself a *tell* that I did actually upset you).
So your peace preaching is not really backed up by your post content which is actually attacking me.
I think you read it wrong mate. I'm not calling you a jerk, and am in fact agreeing with your point. (I think?) If your point in saying that:
...the simple point is that I can just say "you are a fucking cunt" and if seemingly I have some sort of "voice" (perhaps due to being a Legendary Member) then now we have a problem which if I didn't say such a thing wouldn't be the case would it.
was to say that you are causing a problem by being hostile that wasn't there before, then I am in agreement with you. It seems you are making a hypothetical point here with your "hostility." I expounded upon that point to say that, hypothetically, some people will act like jerks because they are free to do so. Since I thought you were being hypothetical, you were not the jerk I was referring to; I was referring to people who would insult other people just to insult them.
If, however, you are actually being (non-hypothetically) hostile to me with your post, then yes, you are actually being a jerk since the insult is uncalled for. I did not think you were, however. If you do want to be a jerk though, you're perfectly free to do it. It's unnecessary, but my point is being a jerk isn't illegal, nor should it be.
It's actually not until you stated that you thought I called you a jerk that I thought the intention of your post could have been anything but non-hostile.
At least the church is being consistent?
Also, it seems the "freedom of expression" France has become such a big fan of recently has limitations as well: French comedian to be tried after Charlie Hebdo gag
Freedom of expression! (...as long as it's approved of expression.)
Some freedom of expression are freer for some, not much for Dieudo!!!!!!
Vive la France.
A little context here: France doesn't have freedom of speech in the same sense as the U. S. They have laws against "hate speech". In fact, the people at Charlie Hebdo were taken to court in 2007 over their drawings. They weren't convicted. I don't know if Dieudonne will be convicted of anything.
It should be pointed out though, in very clear terms, that Dieudonne is a Jew-hating Nazi. In the U. S. it's not illegal to be a Jew-hating Nazi, but in France it's at least of questionable legality. (Here in Canada it's closer to France than the U.S. with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.) Maybe if Dieudonne is tried it'll help clarify whether or not being a Jew-hating Nazi is legal in France.
I personally am a free speech absolutist, so I think Dieudonne should be free to spread his Jew-hatred and I should be free to point out that he's a Jew-hater. It's better for things to be out in the open and to have the cards on the table.
People may think I'm trolling, or joking, or being needlessly provacative by calling Dieudonne a Jew-hating Nazi, but I'm not. Go read about him. Since it's essentially illegal to do a Nazi salute, he invented an inverted Nazi salute ("Quenelle") that he could get away with. Jew-hatred never really went away in Europe, it just went underground with Europeans. Then they imported many North Africans for whom Jew-hatred never even had to go underground. This allows the Europeans to outsource their Jew-hatred. Sad. Clever, but sad. It's not surprising that a Jew-hating Nazi like Dieudonne would have such a large following and so many supporters. And that swastikas a regularly painted on Jewish graves in Europe. And that every once in a while a Jew-hater goes on a Jew-killing spree. And people pretend to be sad briefly, and then ignore it.
This was all an aside from the main point of this thread, which was, of course that Pope Francis has insulted a freedom that is as dear to me as my mother, so if I ever meet him it's good to know he's OK with me punching him in the face. Or shooting him in the head Charlie Hebdo style. I'm not sure if Pope Francis was talking about face-punching or head-shooting. Either way.
Jump to: