keddaw
-16
14
keddaw has not written any posts yet.
keddaw has not written any posts yet.
I think I have a couple of suggestions:
Find a current social/scientific norm that maps almost perfectly to Archimedes' time that you disagree with (e.g. the need for a strong, expansionist military; use of torture; increase in state power over citizens; existence of a political class etc.) and use the same arguments against it now, including outcomes and dangers, and they should map to decent arguments then.
Find a socially wronged group and use arguments for their emancipation (women, non-whites, gays, children etc. depending on your era) and whichever hated/discriminated against group they map to in Archimedes' time will almost definitely be helped by your emancipation arguments.
Say that hatred/fear based on religion is wrong,
Correct. I made the jump of me appearing as is in 530CE as opposed to 'baby me' since I do not in any logical sense think that baby me is me. So yes, the question is invalid (in my view) but I tried to make it valid by altering the question without explicitly saying I was doing so (i.e. "If you were to pop into existence in 530 CE would you be a scientific skeptic?")
The cost of a false shout IS low, otherwise we wouldn't have fire drills.
The second order costs of (the state) limiting free speech when there is no direct harm is huge.
Well, the person who started typing this reply was someone incredibly similar, but not identical, to the person who finished (neither of who are the present me). It was a person who shared genes, who had an almost identical memory of childhood and education, who shares virtually all my goals, interests and dreams and is more like me than any other person that has ever lived. However, that person was not the me who exists now.
Extrapolate that backwards, becoming less and less like current me over time and you get an idea of who started learning the skills I currently have.
It's not my fault if people have a broken view of what/who they actually are.
Do you really think you're so smart that you would have been a proper scientific skeptic even if you'd been born in 500 C.E.?
Yes. "But your genes would be different." Then it wouldn't be me. "Okay, same genes, but no scientific education." Then it wouldn't be me.
As much as such a thing as 'me' exists then it comes with all the knowledge and skills I have gained either through genetics, training or learning. Otherwise it isn't 'me'.
Okay, but what it comes down to is what is the expected reaction of reasonable people in a given situation. If people can't safely exit a theatre then we need to re-think theatres. And safety tests.
If I'm in a theatre and a patron shouts that the popcorn has been poisoned (an intentional lie) then I can't conceive of any action (assuming [s]he hasn't been near the popcorn) other than ejection and ban. don't see why their liberty has to be sacrificed.
Similarly, if the risk of injury is as low as I think it (should be) is then the intent to cause panic is again not an issue for the... (read more)
Which has nothing to say on the possible, actual or long-term harm of removing the rights of free speech in a certain situation - it simply defines (quite well) the other side of the equation.
The criminalisation of free speech is a severe measure and must be as limited as is practicable in scope. All western societies are based on the free exchange and discussions of ideas. The benefit of free speech is so great (as mentioned in the Hustler case) that its restriction must prevent some great harm. As a recent example showed, the right of a Florida pastor to burn a book outweighed the strong probability of his... (read more)
Limiting the scope of a civil remedy is somewhat removed from the distinctions between civil and criminal, no?
So close notTheOtherDave...
when it costs X to lower the risk by Y of harm Z, and X > Y Z chance of an incident, then implementing the measure is bad policy.
Is exactly the point, but you have not defined X. Given that X leads to a slippery slope decrease in all free speech rights (e.g. Gitmo torture reporting, Bradley Manning etc. etc.) then how do you quantify X?
Sometimes the direct harm of X may be less than the others, but the principle is much more important.
This is why we presume people innocent. This is why convicting no-one is preferable to convicting the wrong person. This is why, in short, we have rights!
Ahh, but, you see, it's their choice to go to hell and not something the omni-benevolent creator of the universe does. But obviously it's their choice at the instant of death and not a moment afterwards when they realise that god actually exists, one can't repent or believe then...
Blame The Victim #Christianity