MarlinTheFish changed the tags on this post: they were "something else, free speech, ridiculous, Completely, Contradict, Position, Pressure, Boundary, AmericA, popping" 9 months, 2 weeks ago.
MarlinTheFish changed the tags on this post: they were "Policy, free speech, Help.com, argument, discussion, Freedom of speech, freedom, Believe, Belief, rights" 9 months, 2 weeks ago.
All ideas are ok. Some actions are illegal if they harm others against their will.
That is my entire opinion on the subject.
This reply has been removed.
This reply has been removed.
Anything and I mean ANYTHING consenting adults want to do to eachother or themselves should be ok.
The same is not true for what you can do to others. You can’t harm others against their will. The problem with this is coercion is really subtle. But its as close as we’ve gotten.
This reply has been removed.
Bio Gal wrote:
Snar wrote:
Anything and I mean ANYTHING consenting adults want to do to eachother or themselves should be ok.
The same is not true for what you can do to others. You can’t harm others against their will. The problem with this is coercion is really subtle. But its as close as we’ve gotten.
I think murder (even between consenting adults) or anything else that damages a person in a permanent way should be off the ‘ok’ list.
Why? If I want someone to murder me, they should be able to. Who on earth are you or anyone else to tell me otherwise? I don’t mean that to be angry, I really mean what on earth could give anyone the right to tell me I cant take my life or have someone else take it? That to me is a violation of personal rights to the ultimate degree.
Haha alright Aragorn, people are totally free to choose what to believe. People can impose whatever torture they like, but the choice belongs to the believer. Now beliefs are supposed to make people’s lives better/more meaningful, so why should a person hold on to something which gets them tortured? There are social consequences, but it comes down to a person’s choice to bear the consequences or not. This is a huge and good question, I’ll see how much I can help answer.
I think a lot of it has to do with the way that people have gotten together to form communities for their mutual benefit. People realized that certain beliefs were not conducive to a peaceful, prosperous environment, so society punishes the holders of these beliefs.
I think the right to believe is not something that can really be determined by society, it is like the right to think. Society (a bunch of individuals with beliefs) can punish people for demonstrating what someone think about something, but are totally powerless to force them to think anything. All they really can force a human to do is force them to act in accordance to their beliefs and even that requires the sanction of the victim.
The good thing is society is made up of so many different individuals with reasons to believe so many different things that in a system which protects the rights of the individual, what you believe is the margin for allowing people to believe what they want, widens. I think it is okay to apply pressure as long as it in no way hurts or threatens an individual’s health. Haha one way to know where to draw the line is to apply pressure until you see that it isn’t in your own best interest to do so. Society’s pressure on you could indicate when that is by calling you an ******* lol. I think it all works out interestingly. The people who keep ideas that are harmful to themselves will die. I think people will have more and more actual freedom to believe, but more and more of a clear reason not to adhere to harmful beliefs as society develops in a way that protects the right of the individual.
That’s all I got right now.
Snar wrote:
Bio Gal wrote:
Snar wrote:
Anything and I mean ANYTHING consenting adults want to do to eachother or themselves should be ok.
The same is not true for what you can do to others. You can’t harm others against their will. The problem with this is coercion is really subtle. But its as close as we’ve gotten.
I think murder (even between consenting adults) or anything else that damages a person in a permanent way should be off the ‘ok’ list.
Why? If I want someone to murder me, they should be able to. Who on earth are you or anyone else to tell me otherwise? I don’t mean that to be angry, I really mean what on earth could give anyone the right to tell me I cant take my life or have someone else take it? That to me is a violation of personal rights to the ultimate degree.
Wow, that would be interesting to think of murder as non-consensual man-slaughter. I feel like it would be kind of difficult to prove that the death was consensual no matter who approved it. By saying suicide on the other hand is illegal ,which I think it is, basically says one does not have the right to take their own life already.
One cane believe that all humans are actually demons that can only be killed with acid and fire, but they can’t act on their quest for extermination. That would be their ‘right to believe.’
Sometimes people say that they believe something to express what their assumptions are and that they’re not really open to argument about it. If it happens in the middle of an argument, they might even be explaining why they were arguing in the first place — not because they had a valid argument in the context but because they had a hidden belief or assumption that was guiding their logic.
lifelover wrote:
Sometimes people say that they believe something to express what their assumptions are and that they’re not really open to argument about it. If it happens in the middle of an argument, they might even be explaining why they were arguing in the first place — not because they had a valid argument in the context but because they had a hidden belief or assumption that was guiding their logic.
This is obvious.
But this topic is asking whether or not society has a right to impose upon those beliefs, however illogical they may be.
verge wrote:
I think it is okay to apply pressure as long as it in no way hurts or threatens an individual’s health.
I’m changing health to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
verge wrote:
verge wrote:
I think it is okay to apply pressure as long as it in no way hurts or threatens an individual’s health.
I’m changing health to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Long live Rousseau.
Snar wrote:
verge wrote:
verge wrote:
I think it is okay to apply pressure as long as it in no way hurts or threatens an individual’s health.
I’m changing health to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Long live Rousseau.
Long live Locke!
verge wrote:
Snar wrote:
verge wrote:
verge wrote:
I think it is okay to apply pressure as long as it in no way hurts or threatens an individual’s health.
I’m changing health to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Long live Rousseau.
Long live Locke!
Ah but Rousseau was where those three ideas were spawned! Plus Locke was kinda bland by comparison. Rousseau has that counter-current aspect I love. One of the bad-boy philosophers of the enlightenment.
Snar wrote:
verge wrote:
Snar wrote:
verge wrote:
verge wrote:
I think it is okay to apply pressure as long as it in no way hurts or threatens an individual’s health.
I’m changing health to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Long live Rousseau.
Long live Locke!
Ah but Rousseau was where those three ideas were spawned! Plus Locke was kinda bland by comparison. Rousseau has that counter-current aspect I love. One of the bad-boy philosophers of the enlightenment.
Yes, but Rousseau believed that individuals should be subordinate to the general collective will, which totally goes against an individual’s right to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I think Locke was the man.
An interesting question, Marlin!
But, I think, we have to distinguish between backed knowledge, rational assumptions and theories, real and effective beliefs — and fake beliefs.
1 — Knowledge is the entirety of proved and reviewed research by natural science or obvious scientifically provable facts; e.g. molecular physics or facts of the evidences of historic verity.
2 — Rational assumptions and theories (also called hypotheses), which are on the path of scientific research, but not yet proved; e.g. some deeper details on atom physics, most of psychological theories, and most of economical convictions.
3 — Real and effective beliefs are all kind of religious and/or philosophical assumptions; e.g. the existence of any god and/or evil, of course.
4 — Fake beliefs (like the denial of Holocaust, the flat-earth-opinion, and — yes! — creationism) are all against point 1 or 2.
Real and effective beliefs cannot and should not be banned, but I wouldn’t mind if the obvious untruth of fake beliefs would be repressed by the society and most notably by the media. Because the publication and proliferation of fake beliefs are an obvious misuse of the freedom of expression.
(I hope my English was able to overcome this demanding topic.)
I cannot help but think that what we’re essentially discussing here is the possibility of controlling an individual’s thoughts and beliefs. Is that not what is being hinted at by the question that some ideas are not okay to believe in? I would submit that it’s okay to hold any belief, despite however unorthodox or extreme in nature, so long as the belief is not acted upon in a way that causes harm to others.
[MarlinTheFish:but the point here is that if the social pressure for some ideas is normal and acceptable, then doesn’t this contradict an unfettered right to believe?/quote]
But who’s going to stop a person from believing in a taboo such as incest? Incest is perfectly legal and normal in some countries. Why is it that certain countries bear differences in there norms? I, myself, do not support the idea of incest - not simply because it’s illegal where I live, but also because I find it repulsive by definition. However, if someone in my country decided to believe that incest is acceptable, would that person not be entitled to their belief provided that there is no commission of incest by this person?
Does the prohibition of acts such as incest deter people from believing that it is okay? I think not.
I would agree that social norms dictate the beliefs and actions of the majority of people. But there are inevitably going to be a few whose beliefs and actions do not accord with the approved standards of society.
Bio Gal wrote:
I think believing a thing and acting on a thing are two different things. I think people have the right to believe what ever they want. But they can’t do what ever they want.
true, but what would be the point in believing in something and then not acting on it?
for example, if I believed that bathing corrupts the soul, then why would I willingly bathe?
(consequently, sometimes this happens in reverse. people do something or want to do something and then manufacture (or justify) the belief that permits them to do so.)
If I believe that homosexuality is a sin (I don’t), like theft is a sin, then why wouldn’t I try to make it against the law?
Zirbel wrote:
Real and effective beliefs cannot and should not be banned, but I wouldn’t mind if the obvious untruth of fake beliefs would be repressed by the society and most notably by the media. Because the publication and proliferation of fake beliefs are an obvious misuse of the freedom of expression.
I agree. misinformation and sensationalism are a huge problem. but apart from engendering in society a greater urgency, a greater demand for truth, there doesn’t seem to be a fair way to do that.
People like to exercise their right of belief in spite of evidence. That’s all well and good. But with ‘rights’ come responsibilities. And in my most humblest of opinions, any belief that you address is open for scrutiny. It is everybody’s ‘right’ to question the beliefs, thoughts and actions of others.
Does this take away their freedom to believe anything they like? No. And if they complain, “Oh you can’t ask questions about this belief, because they are entitled to it bla bla bla”, they can f*** off.
And by f*** off I mean they can keep their beliefs to themselves, of course.
..Minerva.. wrote:
People like to exercise their right of belief in spite of evidence. That’s all well and good. But with ‘rights’ come responsibilities. And in my most humblest of opinions, any belief that you address is open for scrutiny. It is everybody’s ‘right’ to question the beliefs, thoughts and actions of others.
Does this take away their freedom to believe anything they like? No. And if they complain, “Oh you can’t ask questions about this belief, because they are entitled to it bla bla bla”, they can f*** off.
that’s a good point about the relationship between rights and responsibility.
I welcome scrutiny as long as it’s done fairly. and I guess I take it for granted and assume that others also agree to that.
however, I can’t force anyone to answer my question or answer them honestly and fairly. and after a certain point, it becomes harassment to continue trying to get them to. it’s a tough call.
It depends. If the person you are talking to (who has the belief in question) is open for discussion and makes it apparent, as in engages your replies/opinions and defends their own equally, there is no line. They have agreed to discuss their belief. If they can’t handle scrutiny, then that is their problem.
Obviously, if someone makes it clear that they do not want to discuss their beliefs, then pressing the issue with them could be taken as harassment. Though I am careful with the usage of this word. There is a difference between honest scrutiny and harassment.
Also, ‘done fairly’ means what exactly?
If there is one term I throw around it is freedom of speech. ‘Done fairly’, since that is a objectively quantifiable, could be in breech of freedom of speech (which trumps any and all other rights and freedoms) so I am not a strong proponent of it.
Snar wrote:
But this topic is asking whether or not society has a right to impose upon those beliefs, however illogical they may be.
well. sort of. it’s more like… does the right to belief curtail an open and honest discussion about that belief?
I think to a certain extent society does and has imposed upon the beliefs of individuals (like verge said) and that despite our cherished right to free speech, we accept that. at least to a certain degree.
..Minerva.. wrote:
Also, ‘done fairly’ means what exactly?
If there is one term I throw around it is freedom of speech. ‘Done fairly’, since that is a objectively quantifiable, could be in breech of freedom of speech (which trumps any and all other rights and freedoms) so I am not a strong proponent of it.
well. Its not completely fleshed out, but no ad hominems would be a part of that. I mean there are certain logical fallacies and sophistry that are “against the rules” in my book. obviously I can’t police others, it’s more a code of honor or something.
Exactly. Really, the only reasonable course of action to take if someone strawmans and/or ad hominems would be to point it out and/or ignore their replies out of principle. There is no way you can draw an official line of do’s and do nots unless you like the idea of slippery sloping into authoritarianism.
Zirbel wrote:
Because the publication and proliferation of fake beliefs are an obvious misuse of the freedom of expression.
a year or two ago, I did some research and I discovered that there is some evidence that bias in the media is actually a response to market demand. in other words, sensationalism and propaganda sell. to a certain degree people see what they want to believe and in general, they want to their world view to be validated, not challenged.
and given that about people wanting to be validated, not challenged…
..Minerva.. wrote:
Really, the only reasonable course of action to take if someone strawmans and/or ad hominems would be to point it out and/or ignore their replies out of principle.
I hate that though, because I can never tell if the greater audience witnessing the discussion gets that. in a court room, the judge is there to take care of that. the judge can say… no, that’s against the rules. that info cannot be admitted as evidence. etc. but in the general public, we have no idea if others know the rules and respect them.
I suppose part of the problem for me is that I assume that if an idea is on the table, it’s up for scrutiny. a market place of ideas, so to speak. that how I want my messages to be treated, but I guess some people just want to offer their idea without being challenged. and I suppose… I should allow for that?
..Minerva.. wrote:
It depends. If the person you are talking to (who has the belief in question) is open for discussion and makes it apparent, as in engages your replies/opinions and defends their own equally, there is no line. They have agreed to discuss their belief. If they can’t handle scrutiny, then that is their problem.
it’s not always so clear if others are open to that. and granted I can’t see these people and so I don’t know if I’m arguing with a 10 year old or what. I mean, what good can come of questioning a kid’s belief in god, especially if say, their mom just died or something. I mean ****.
on more thing that gets limits my free speech… why can’t I choose more than one post in a thread as quotable?
:D
Thanks for all the thoughtful posts everyone!
MarlinTheFish wrote:
I think I like the human-wall solution better.
I certainly do. I think it should have been left at that.
I think people should think for themselves instead of just going with the crowd. I mean would Ferdinand Magellan ever discover the world isn’t flat if him and his men didn’t push the boundaries and make a full circle around the earth? We all may hold a piece to what is really true and if we never try and go against what our society says is right then we may never advance or get better as a society.
Anonymous
#
9 months, 2 weeks ago (1 day, 10 hours after post)
I agree with you. I’m very tolerant about other’s beliefs, but there are some beliefs that aren’t worth protecting. Hateful ones, for instance, or ones with the potential to harm.
I just hate calling someone out on their racism/sexism/homophobia/other prejudice, and having them say “well it’s just my opinion, if you can’t handle it then get out”. As if the reason I have an issue with what they’ve said is because I can’t handle a differing opinion, not the fact that what they’ve said is simply awful, hateful, and wrong.
Okay But should we care about this that what other people are believing or is it right or not ?
Do not waste yourself in rejection; do not bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Ignore the bad ( that you think are bad ) take the good things Love. Care . Fun. Happiness Alll ^_^
~*Kind Soul*~ wrote:
Okay But should we care about this that what other people are believing or is it right or not ?
Do not waste yourself in rejection; do not bark against the bad, but chant the beauty of the good.
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Ignore the bad ( that you think are bad ) take the good things Love. Care . Fun. Happiness Alll ^_^
some ideas are just plain false. for example, the idea that dragons actually existed, or that communism is a punishment inflicted on people by satan, or the idea that there is scientific evidence that one joint causes psychiatric episodes similar to schizophrenia. Misinformation and lies ARE harmful and weaken democracy. don’t forget that a democracy only works when the masses can make “well-informed” decisions. http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marbl…
http://deevybee.blogspot.com/2012/01/…
some ideas are used irresponsibly, sometimes even to deny other citizen’s their rights. it is wrong to print lies about someone in the newspapers because it violates their rights. if someone is trying to take away your right to marry the person you love or trying to take away your children, don’t you think it’s time to make a stand? http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/08…
I’m all for having fun, but as an American, I feel it is my duty to stand up and defend the rights of my fellow Americans. If I don’t, who will? at a certain point you have to actively fight injustice. Do you think women would’ve gained the right to vote if they just simply ignored it?
Anonymous wrote:
I agree with you. I’m very tolerant about other’s beliefs, but there are some beliefs that aren’t worth protecting. Hateful ones, for instance, or ones with the potential to harm.
I just hate calling someone out on their racism/sexism/homophobia/other prejudice, and having them say “well it’s just my opinion, if you can’t handle it then get out”. As if the reason I have an issue with what they’ve said is because I can’t handle a differing opinion, not the fact that what they’ve said is simply awful, hateful, and wrong.
thanks for your thoughts. I agree. sometimes an argument is used to silence or dismiss otherwise valid and reasonable arguments. that can be frustrating.
there are irresponsible uses of freedoms. I think most people can agree on that. although I don’t always agree that addressing these examples of misuse can be done via the legal code, perhaps sometimes it is necessary?
collectively, we have to do better about recognizing the improper and unfair applications of our rights. I hope these conversations can provide a venue to examine that.
I guess I just don’t understand what an “irresponsible use of freedom” would be. Opinions and beliefs are for some graved in stone, some are more fluid and change. I wouldn’t like for anyone to dictate to me how I “must” believe, nor would I expect to impose my belief on anything to someone else.
I had extremely stubborn and opinionated grandparents, for example, who were so set in their ways nothing at all would detract them from their crazy set of beliefs. It was so frustrating talking to them about certain subjects that you just had to give up and talk about something else. Especially as they saw me as a set of the younger generation who knew nothing, while they, part of the older “wiser” generation, knew more.
But I would never tell them, or anyone, no matter how crazy their belief structure, what it was they “must” believe in. I’m sorry, but “improper and unfair applications of our rights” sounds everything like tyranny to me.
For me, this is super simple. My Mother said it…… “WHEN YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE, YOU GET TO CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE”
In my case, I CHOOSE TO BELIEVE that people are basically good, the glass is more than half full, there is a Santa Claus, and if some crazy person is driving too fast and cuts me off, it’s because they have a sick child at home and have to get there to take them to the hospital. I choose to believe that we needed a reality check on socialism vs. freedom, hence, Obama. I choose to believe he will be defeated.
Snar
verge
WritetheHeroine
mindhealer
Zirbel
windmills,
..Minerva..
CallingAllAngels
Dyal
graceconnie0
ellenmaryellen