Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
2. If I have a duty to perform an act or refrain from one (i.e, deontological approach), then what reason can it be other than to not hurt, harm, or degrade the dignity of others (HHDO) - a consequence, btw? If out-of-the blue hard slaps on the face to random passers-by did not tend to HHDO that person, then it's hard for me to justify any restriction against slapping them.
The first argument below is deontological. The second and third are consequentialist arguments from your earlier posts:
1. Hurting others is wrong because it is a properly basic moral duty to refrain from hurting others.
2. Hurting others is wrong because no actually useful information about how to correct [problems] comes from hateful acts.
3. Hurting others is acceptable if it serves a societally or cultural redeeming purpose.
Deontology underpins right and wrong acts as foundational truths. Consequentialism reduces the rightness and wrongness of acts to their social or cultural consequences. Do you see the different between the two?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
3. Then what can more objective than the act/expression being plainly a conscious and deliberate setting out to HHD others clearly outside the scope of defense of self and others (physically, cognitively, or emotionally)? True, we don't have some 2050-or-so brain scanner (yet) than can read every last chemo-electric impulse of the brains of the accuser and accused. Even so, most of us are similar enough to each other to be HHD'ed by the same essential types of acts/expressions, even if not precisely to the same type or extent, the average person can appreciate and see how people could be HHD'ed by that act or expression. If we humans tended not to understand what tended to HHD others, then it's difficult to see how we could read other's feelings, faces, etc. at all; let along claim there is even a semi-objective basis for any kind of morals ethics or courtesies at all -- perhaps even physical harms as well (depending on how HHD'ed that other person gets by that act or expression).
What you're doing here is reducing the definition of hate speech to an intentional state.
This doesn't work as an objective standard because intentional states are subject to personal biases, schema, conceptual frameworks, a priori assumptions and so on. You've actually given a textbook example of a morally subjectivist argument.
Your argument needs to explain why the right to personal dignity trumps the right to personal liberty when it comes to hate speech. So far you've given utilitarian arguments in support of personal dignity. That by itself won't be enough.
You're fine with shutting down Infowars, Briebart, Fox News because you don't like them. But when someone wants to shut down CNN, CBS, MSNBC, you scream "You're attacking the first amendment".
The companies that own those outlets are free to shut them down. YouTube, as a private company, is free to not carry them if it so desires.
There are way too many people who don't understand that the First Amendment applies to the government, and not to private entities.
There are way too many people who don't understand that the First Amendment applies to the government, and not to private entities.
It does in certain industries, the phone company can't deny you service because you have a racist business. As another example Net Neutrality required an ISP to give their customers access to a site like Stormfront. It has yet to happen but it's only a matter of time before they are pressured to block sites like that.
'
Are you suggesting any of those are NOT left leaning?
Your list is a joke. Half of those are right-wing nutjob sites, and many are legit mainstream media. Putting CNN on the same level as InfoWars doesn't even deserve a legitimate response.
There are no liberal media sites that promote such ridiculous conspiracy theories as Alex Jones. Alex Jones doesn't even believe in the garbage he spouts. He simply found an audience dumb enough to bilk for money by selling them snakeoil diet supplements. He profits from ignorance.
Your list is a joke. Half of those are right-wing nutjob sites, and many are legit mainstream media. Putting CNN on the same level as InfoWars doesn't even deserve a legitimate response.
There are no liberal media sites that promote such ridiculous conspiracy theories as Alex Jones. Alex Jones doesn't even believe in the garbage he spouts. He simply found an audience dumb enough to bilk for money by selling them snakeoil diet supplements. He profits from ignorance.
It does in certain industries, the phone company can't deny you service because you have a racist business. As another example Net Neutrality required an ISP to give their customers access to a site like Stormfront. It has yet to happen but it's only a matter of time before they are pressured to block sites like that.
I supported Net Neutrality. Many here, including some ardent right-wingers, did not.
You do realize that the news is free to lie to the American public without any consequences, right?
Look it up. That is 100% true.
They are also allowed, and even sometimes, legally forced, to withhold/ or black-out certain issues and news. If something has the potential to cause a mass panic, there is a FEMA regulation about releasing that kind of news to the public.
Fail. Did you actually watch that little video clip? What part of "preposterous theory" do you not understand? Under no circumstance did CNN indicate they support that theory. He even called it a conspiracy theory. I can't even believe I have to say this. When a news agency reports the existence of crackpots, that doesn't mean they're endorsing what they say. Lemon was mocking the black hole theory. If you think otherwise, we'll just have to accept that you and I are living in a parallel universe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
