|
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 11 2015 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:
So the only way to legitimately insult you is saying "your face looks funny?", because everything else is not really "you"?
how do you even come up with these responses?
|
On January 11 2015 06:22 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:
So the only way to legitimately insult you is saying "your face looks funny?", because everything else is not really "you"? how do you even come up with these responses?
because apparently you're convinced people can only be insulted on a biological level because everything else is just "ideas" and no one can be insulted on the ground of an ideology? What constitutes a person if not the sum of beliefs and ideologies they chose to align with?
|
On January 11 2015 06:21 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:16 Millitron wrote:
Because ideologies are inseparable from the groups that believe them. Well would you be insulting dead people if you attacked Bonapartism?
Yes. But I don't think they'll complain too much about it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you shouldn't be allowed to attack groups because its tantamount to attacking the groups' members. I just cannot abide by people not understanding that many groups people belong to are just as intrinsic as race.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
look, it was never about whether people can be insulted by talking about their beliefs. no shit they can. the point was about a distinction between attacking ideas like religion and attacking persons like a racist statement.
the distinction is not purely about religion having semantic content and race does not, tehy do function as identities. but the legal rule is an ideal construction of free speech and criticizing ideas fits that mold, and hating on races doesn't.
you are confused from the beginning about what the disagreement is.
|
On January 11 2015 06:26 oneofthem wrote:
look, it was never about whether people can be insulted by talking about their beliefs. no shit they can. the point was about a distinction between attacking ideas like religion and attacking persons like a racist statement.
the distinction is not purely about religion having semantic content and race does not, tehy do function as identities. but the legal rule is an ideal construction of free speech and criticizing ideas fits that mold, and hating on races doesn't.
you are confused from the beginning about what the disagreement is.
I think those lines blur heavily, particularly around Jewish people. Where the lines between race and religion are already very blurry.
|
On January 11 2015 06:16 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:09 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 06:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 05:54 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 05:39 Nyxisto wrote:
"I only hate America, I don't hate Americans"...? Ideologies are made by what people believe and how people live their lives, it's not something you dig out of the ground. Obviously people will feel personally attacked if their ideologies are attacked. That's true for pacifism, vegetarianism, feminism, religion and everything else.And that's completely okay because what ideologies you chose to align with is an important part of your personality. You can't attack ideologies without attacking people. Of course you can attack ideologies without attacking people. Your example is pretty terrible because "America" is not an ideology. If you said "I hate the US' foreign policy interventionism", would you be attacking the American people? No. If you said "I hate dogmas of all forms, including religions", would you be attacking religious people? No, you would be attacking religions as dogmatic systems of belief. You're not blaming people for being religious, disputing their right to be religious or attacking them individually or collectively for having their religious beliefs, you're criticizing a system of belief for its characteristics as a system of belief. Yes, you would. Many religious people define themselves solely on their religion. An attack on their religion is an attack on them. There are Christians whose sole defining trait is their religion. An attack on Christianity is an attack on the very thing that makes them who they are. Anything negative you say about any ideology is inherently also negative about its followers. I could say Communism is evil because it undermines property rights. Likewise, I am saying that Communists are evil because they support the undermining of property rights. No, you would not. An attack on their religion is an attack on their religion. How they choose to feel about an attack on their religion is up to them, but it doesn't change the fact that the attack was on a system of belief and not on the group they belong to. "Christianity" and "Christians" are not synonymous - they're two different words with two different meanings. But the group is defined solely on the belief system. Christians could not exist without Christianity. The two are inseparable. An attack on Christianity is an attack on Christians. If I say, "Christianity is stupid, its just fairy tales for adults.", I am implicitly saying Christians are stupid for believing in fairy tales.
Christians could not exist as Christians without Christianity, but one is still a group of people and the other is an ideology. You separated the two yourself by using two different words to relate to two different objects. If you say "Christians are stupid", you are attacking the group. If you say "Christianity is stupid", you are attacking the ideology. French law makes a clear distinction between the two - and so do social sciences, philosophy, etc.
On January 11 2015 06:16 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:12 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:
So the only way to legitimately insult you is saying "your face looks funny?", because everything else is not really "you"? If you say "black people are lazy", that is a racist statement because you are talking about a group of people. The target is the group of people, not an ideology. How this is not glaringly obvious is beyond me. Because ideologies are inseparable from the groups that believe them.
No they're not, as I explained. You can have ideologies and beliefs which are documented in books and not held by anyone currently. You can even invent ideologies yourself, without believing in them. A system of belief is not a group of people, period.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 11 2015 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:26 oneofthem wrote:
look, it was never about whether people can be insulted by talking about their beliefs. no shit they can. the point was about a distinction between attacking ideas like religion and attacking persons like a racist statement.
the distinction is not purely about religion having semantic content and race does not, tehy do function as identities. but the legal rule is an ideal construction of free speech and criticizing ideas fits that mold, and hating on races doesn't.
you are confused from the beginning about what the disagreement is. I think those lines blur heavily, particularly around Jewish people. Where the lines between race and religion are already very blurry.
religion can be used as a descriptive/identity term for people, but they are also systems of belief. if a statement is clearly about criticising the content of said belief system then it does not matter if the group of people is amish or jewish or mormons.
|
On January 11 2015 06:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:16 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:09 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 06:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 05:54 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 05:39 Nyxisto wrote:
"I only hate America, I don't hate Americans"...? Ideologies are made by what people believe and how people live their lives, it's not something you dig out of the ground. Obviously people will feel personally attacked if their ideologies are attacked. That's true for pacifism, vegetarianism, feminism, religion and everything else.And that's completely okay because what ideologies you chose to align with is an important part of your personality. You can't attack ideologies without attacking people. Of course you can attack ideologies without attacking people. Your example is pretty terrible because "America" is not an ideology. If you said "I hate the US' foreign policy interventionism", would you be attacking the American people? No. If you said "I hate dogmas of all forms, including religions", would you be attacking religious people? No, you would be attacking religions as dogmatic systems of belief. You're not blaming people for being religious, disputing their right to be religious or attacking them individually or collectively for having their religious beliefs, you're criticizing a system of belief for its characteristics as a system of belief. Yes, you would. Many religious people define themselves solely on their religion. An attack on their religion is an attack on them. There are Christians whose sole defining trait is their religion. An attack on Christianity is an attack on the very thing that makes them who they are. Anything negative you say about any ideology is inherently also negative about its followers. I could say Communism is evil because it undermines property rights. Likewise, I am saying that Communists are evil because they support the undermining of property rights. No, you would not. An attack on their religion is an attack on their religion. How they choose to feel about an attack on their religion is up to them, but it doesn't change the fact that the attack was on a system of belief and not on the group they belong to. "Christianity" and "Christians" are not synonymous - they're two different words with two different meanings. But the group is defined solely on the belief system. Christians could not exist without Christianity. The two are inseparable. An attack on Christianity is an attack on Christians. If I say, "Christianity is stupid, its just fairy tales for adults.", I am implicitly saying Christians are stupid for believing in fairy tales. Christians could not exist as Christians without Christianity, but one is still a group of people and the other is an ideology. You separated the two yourself by using two different words to relate to two different objects. If you say "Christians are stupid", you are attacking the group. If you say "Christianity is stupid", you are attacking the ideology. French law makes a clear distinction between the two - and so do social sciences, philosophy, etc. Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:16 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:12 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:
So the only way to legitimately insult you is saying "your face looks funny?", because everything else is not really "you"? If you say "black people are lazy", that is a racist statement because you are talking about a group of people. The target is the group of people, not an ideology. How this is not glaringly obvious is beyond me. Because ideologies are inseparable from the groups that believe them. No they're not, as I explained. You can have ideologies and beliefs which are documented in books and not held by anyone currently. You can even invent ideologies yourself, without believing in them. A system of belief is not a group of people, period.
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:28 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 06:16 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:09 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 06:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 05:54 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 05:39 Nyxisto wrote:
"I only hate America, I don't hate Americans"...? Ideologies are made by what people believe and how people live their lives, it's not something you dig out of the ground. Obviously people will feel personally attacked if their ideologies are attacked. That's true for pacifism, vegetarianism, feminism, religion and everything else.And that's completely okay because what ideologies you chose to align with is an important part of your personality. You can't attack ideologies without attacking people. Of course you can attack ideologies without attacking people. Your example is pretty terrible because "America" is not an ideology. If you said "I hate the US' foreign policy interventionism", would you be attacking the American people? No. If you said "I hate dogmas of all forms, including religions", would you be attacking religious people? No, you would be attacking religions as dogmatic systems of belief. You're not blaming people for being religious, disputing their right to be religious or attacking them individually or collectively for having their religious beliefs, you're criticizing a system of belief for its characteristics as a system of belief. Yes, you would. Many religious people define themselves solely on their religion. An attack on their religion is an attack on them. There are Christians whose sole defining trait is their religion. An attack on Christianity is an attack on the very thing that makes them who they are. Anything negative you say about any ideology is inherently also negative about its followers. I could say Communism is evil because it undermines property rights. Likewise, I am saying that Communists are evil because they support the undermining of property rights. No, you would not. An attack on their religion is an attack on their religion. How they choose to feel about an attack on their religion is up to them, but it doesn't change the fact that the attack was on a system of belief and not on the group they belong to. "Christianity" and "Christians" are not synonymous - they're two different words with two different meanings. But the group is defined solely on the belief system. Christians could not exist without Christianity. The two are inseparable. An attack on Christianity is an attack on Christians. If I say, "Christianity is stupid, its just fairy tales for adults.", I am implicitly saying Christians are stupid for believing in fairy tales. Christians could not exist as Christians without Christianity, but one is still a group of people and the other is an ideology. You separated the two yourself by using two different words to relate to two different objects. If you say "Christians are stupid", you are attacking the group. If you say "Christianity is stupid", you are attacking the ideology. French law makes a clear distinction between the two - and so do social sciences, philosophy, etc. On January 11 2015 06:16 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:12 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:
So the only way to legitimately insult you is saying "your face looks funny?", because everything else is not really "you"? If you say "black people are lazy", that is a racist statement because you are talking about a group of people. The target is the group of people, not an ideology. How this is not glaringly obvious is beyond me. Because ideologies are inseparable from the groups that believe them. No they're not, as I explained. You can have ideologies and beliefs which are documented in books and not held by anyone currently. You can even invent ideologies yourself, without believing in them. A system of belief is not a group of people, period. How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well. Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law.
you are filling in some blanks here. if he said 'christianity is stupid and christians are retards for believing in it' then maybe you'll have a case, but it is more about irrationality and whatnot.
|
On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law.
How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division?
|
On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:28 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 06:16 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:09 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 06:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 05:54 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 05:39 Nyxisto wrote:
"I only hate America, I don't hate Americans"...? Ideologies are made by what people believe and how people live their lives, it's not something you dig out of the ground. Obviously people will feel personally attacked if their ideologies are attacked. That's true for pacifism, vegetarianism, feminism, religion and everything else.And that's completely okay because what ideologies you chose to align with is an important part of your personality. You can't attack ideologies without attacking people. Of course you can attack ideologies without attacking people. Your example is pretty terrible because "America" is not an ideology. If you said "I hate the US' foreign policy interventionism", would you be attacking the American people? No. If you said "I hate dogmas of all forms, including religions", would you be attacking religious people? No, you would be attacking religions as dogmatic systems of belief. You're not blaming people for being religious, disputing their right to be religious or attacking them individually or collectively for having their religious beliefs, you're criticizing a system of belief for its characteristics as a system of belief. Yes, you would. Many religious people define themselves solely on their religion. An attack on their religion is an attack on them. There are Christians whose sole defining trait is their religion. An attack on Christianity is an attack on the very thing that makes them who they are. Anything negative you say about any ideology is inherently also negative about its followers. I could say Communism is evil because it undermines property rights. Likewise, I am saying that Communists are evil because they support the undermining of property rights. No, you would not. An attack on their religion is an attack on their religion. How they choose to feel about an attack on their religion is up to them, but it doesn't change the fact that the attack was on a system of belief and not on the group they belong to. "Christianity" and "Christians" are not synonymous - they're two different words with two different meanings. But the group is defined solely on the belief system. Christians could not exist without Christianity. The two are inseparable. An attack on Christianity is an attack on Christians. If I say, "Christianity is stupid, its just fairy tales for adults.", I am implicitly saying Christians are stupid for believing in fairy tales. Christians could not exist as Christians without Christianity, but one is still a group of people and the other is an ideology. You separated the two yourself by using two different words to relate to two different objects. If you say "Christians are stupid", you are attacking the group. If you say "Christianity is stupid", you are attacking the ideology. French law makes a clear distinction between the two - and so do social sciences, philosophy, etc. On January 11 2015 06:16 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:12 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 06:08 Nyxisto wrote:
So the only way to legitimately insult you is saying "your face looks funny?", because everything else is not really "you"? If you say "black people are lazy", that is a racist statement because you are talking about a group of people. The target is the group of people, not an ideology. How this is not glaringly obvious is beyond me. Because ideologies are inseparable from the groups that believe them. No they're not, as I explained. You can have ideologies and beliefs which are documented in books and not held by anyone currently. You can even invent ideologies yourself, without believing in them. A system of belief is not a group of people, period. How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well. Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law.
It's not saying anything about "them", it's saying something about the belief system. The reasons behind why people adhere to various belief systems can vary tremendously (socialization, education, personal experience, etc. etc.), and you can perfectly well criticize a system of belief without being critical at all of the people who come to adhere to it for the reasons they do.
It wasn't an appeal to authority, it was there to inform you that the distinction can clearly be made and as been studied and commented on extensively. If you wish to educate yourself on the matter, you have a large body of literature you can choose from.
|
On January 11 2015 06:31 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 11 2015 06:26 oneofthem wrote:
look, it was never about whether people can be insulted by talking about their beliefs. no shit they can. the point was about a distinction between attacking ideas like religion and attacking persons like a racist statement.
the distinction is not purely about religion having semantic content and race does not, tehy do function as identities. but the legal rule is an ideal construction of free speech and criticizing ideas fits that mold, and hating on races doesn't.
you are confused from the beginning about what the disagreement is. I think those lines blur heavily, particularly around Jewish people. Where the lines between race and religion are already very blurry. religion can be used as a descriptive/identity term for people, but they are also systems of belief. if a statement is clearly about criticising the content of said belief system then it does not matter if the group of people is amish or jewish or mormons.
Well criticizing the idea that Jews are God's chosen people is literally attacking who "they are" even if one is exclusively addressing the belief.
|
On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division?
I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either.
If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members!
|
On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members!
you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon.
by that same logic, communism/anyreligionever is (in theory) a (nearly) perfect system, and human beings are the limiting factors with all their greed, vanity and other shortcomings. darn humans!
|
On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon.
It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works.
|
On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. by that same logic, communism/anyreligionever is (in theory) a (nearly) perfect system, and human beings are the limiting factors with all their greed, vanity and other shortcomings. darn humans!
Yeah, I agree. I'm trying to make the point that they're OK with criticizing things that aren't all that different than things they aren't OK with criticizing.
I'm OK with criticizing the group as a whole or any of its members. I'm NOT trying to say you can't criticize religion because that also criticizes the group. I'm saying you should be able to do either or both.
On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works.
Its a double-standard. Just because its been codified doesn't mean its somehow better.
|
On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members!
The fact that you used a plural word isn't sufficient to mean you're talking about a group as a whole. You're just equivocating on what "blacks" means, using it in two senses at the same time (pretending it refers to a group as such when it is actually only talking about members of the group).
You set a linguistic trap for yourself. "Lazy" is a stereotype (and a negative one) about individuals. I can show you with a grammatically identical (but positive stereotype) example why your example doesn't demonstrate the point you think it does. If you said "blacks are fast" this doesn't refer to the group in any meaningful way like how quickly they complete a migration or pilgrimage. It reads clearly as a stereotype about running.
I understand the point you want to make.
But for instance, you could justifiably talk about a wealth gap by saying "blacks in the US are at an economic disadvantage." And you could say that without for a second implying that Oprah was a homeless beggar. Don't you agree? There is no logical bridge over the category error river you keep swimming down.
If I said a religion was false would that imply I believe that members of that religion were... false? It's the fallacy of division.
You think that calling a an idea stupid means you're automatically calling anyone who thinks it stupid. What you're in essence saying is everybody who believes something stupid is themselves stupid. This isn't reasonable because it's possible for level heads to disagree. Hypothetically I could rattle on about communism being a stupid belief system while the entire time praising the intellect of Karl Marx. There is no connection.
|
On January 11 2015 05:17 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 05:13 Nyxisto wrote:
This isn't primarily a legal issue. Just because you can say everything you want doesn't mean you should. You can't build a community when everybody is using their free speech for the sole purpose of polarizing society and spreading hate. This goes for either side of the spectrum. The free market can settle this though.
how the fuck can you bring the free market in this. lol
|
On January 11 2015 07:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! The fact that you used a plural word isn't sufficient to mean you're talking about a group as a whole. You're just equivocating on what "blacks" means, using it in two senses at the same time (pretending it refers to a group as such when it is actually only talking about members of the group). You set a linguistic trap for yourself. "Lazy" is a stereotype (and a negative one) about individuals. I can show you with a grammatically identical (but positive stereotype) example why your example doesn't demonstrate the point you think it does. If you said "blacks are fast" this doesn't refer to the group in any meaningful way like how quickly they complete a migration or pilgrimage. It reads clearly as a stereotype about running. I understand the point you want to make. But for instance, you could justifiably talk about a wealth gap by saying "blacks in the US are at an economic disadvantage." And you could say that without for a second implying that Oprah was a homeless beggar. Don't you agree? There is no logical bridge over the category error river you keep swimming down. If I said a religion was false would that imply I believe that members of that religion were... false? It's the fallacy of division. You think that calling a an idea stupid means you're automatically calling anyone who thinks it stupid. What you're in essence saying is everybody who believes something stupid is themselves stupid. This isn't reasonable because it's possible for level heads to disagree. Hypothetically I could rattle on about communism being a stupid belief system while the entire time praising the intellect of Karl Marx. There is no connection.
Except if you could go on and on about how a belief system is stupid, then the man who came up with it and believed it couldn't have been that smart either. I mean, how could a smart person devote their life to working on something stupid? The simple act of doing so is strong evidence they aren't that smart.
On January 11 2015 07:30 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 05:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 05:13 Nyxisto wrote:
This isn't primarily a legal issue. Just because you can say everything you want doesn't mean you should. You can't build a community when everybody is using their free speech for the sole purpose of polarizing society and spreading hate. This goes for either side of the spectrum. The free market can settle this though. how the fuck can you bring the free market in this. lol
The marketplace of ideas. Stupid ideas die out, good ones live on.
|
On January 11 2015 07:21 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 07:21 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 07:12 Doublemint wrote:On January 11 2015 06:39 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 06:34 oBlade wrote:On January 11 2015 06:32 Millitron wrote:
How is saying "Christianity is stupid" not also calling Christians stupid? It's saying they believe something stupid, which implies that they are stupid as well.
Nice appeal to authority though, bringing up French law. How do you know what an appeal to authority is but you don't recognize everyone telling you you are making a category error and committing the fallacy of division? I don't agree that I'm making a category error. Clearly Nyxisto doesn't either. If I'm committing the fallacy of division, why isn't it OK to say "Blacks are lazy". I'm only attacking the race, not any of its members! you do have a point, though I am more on the side of kwizach/oneofthem - BUT!, I don't have any illusion that this high level of abstract thinking and distinction will ever fully arrive in " the real world". at least not anytime soon. It's already in the real world, and has been for quite some time. Like I said, that's how French law works. Its a double-standard. Just because its been codified doesn't mean its somehow better.
There is nothing about it that makes it a double-standard. It works perfectly well in French law and is fundamental to having both a right to free speech and a protection against incitement to racial hatred.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
