This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Is it ever right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Study metaphysics for 4 years, then call me ignorant. Until then, I really don't care.
I wanna call up the college you went to and ask them to define metaphysics for me. Which one was it?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
1 is a representation of a physical thing. Go pick up an apple. How many apples do you have? You have one. That is not beyond a physical understanding.
You say the dumbest things, then you defend them with nonsense. I hate argueing with you. It's worse than Laihendi. When Laihendi realizes he is wrong, he just calls you a name and leaves.
And you call someone a name and stay...
The Apple is physical. Oneness is not. If you can show me oneness, I'll call you a name and then leave. But you can't. You can only point at particular things that are "one."
Can you point at rightness? You can only point at individual actions that are right.
So, yes, there is a
metaphysical
hierarchy in both of them.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Study metaphysics for 4 years, then call me ignorant. Until then, I really don't care.
I wanna call up the college you went to and ask them to define metaphysics for me. Which one was it?
Ave Maria University
Florida
Post by
MyTie
What I asked: Is mathematics metaphysical?
What he answered: "Not properly speaking, they are not being in the first meaning of 'being'. Quantaties are real. Our studies of quantaties is different. For example: We can look at triangular things. We can describe them as triangular. Triangular is real. The theories behind a triangle, such as the sum of the angles equaling 180 degrees is mental."
"Numbers are not physical, but the physical reality can be numbered. You have to distinguish between the idea of mathematics and mathematics in reality."
Dr. Barry David of Ave Maria University
So, I'm gonna cut you some slack. It appears that your perspective of mathematics changes its definition of metaphysical or not. You could be looking at it differently than me. I apologize for calling you ignorant.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
What I asked: Is mathematics metaphysical?
What he answered: "Not properly speaking, they are not being in the first meaning of 'being'. Quantaties are real. Our studies of quantaties is different. For example: We can look at triangular things. We can describe them as triangular. Triangular is real. The theories behind a triangle, such as the sum of the angles equaling 180 degrees is mental."
"Numbers are not physical, but the physical reality can be numbered. You have to distinguish between the idea of mathematics and mathematics in reality."
Dr. Barry David of Ave Maria University
So, I'm gonna cut you some slack. It appears that your perspective of mathematics changes its definition of metaphysical or not. You could be looking at it differently than me. I apologize for calling you ignorant.
You actually contacted him 0.o
He was my Ancient Phil and Metaphysics Professor.
And yes, it depends if you're talking about mathematics as a speculative science (in the mind) or an art (in reality).
Post by
MyTie
You actually contacted him 0.o
You don't know me very well.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Except that people constantly use the first amendment to try to say, hey this slander is protected under the bill of rights! Or hey my porno billboard is protected under law! when really it is not. The bill of rights does not say those things are illegal, but it does not protect them as rights, which is what I was saying.
Thus current decency laws, anti slander laws, harassment laws, and certain censorship laws, etc, that prevent things like graphic sex on tv, those are fine from a constitutional perspective. Of course it would also be fine from a constitutional perspective to allow those things as well, but you can't use the constitution to argue that you can say whatever you want however you want. And personally I don't think 100% unregulated free speech is good for society.
How does an anti-slander law not fall under freedom of speech, pray tell.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
334295
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
1 is a representation of a physical thing. Go pick up an apple. How many apples do you have? You have one. That is not beyond a physical understanding.
You say the dumbest things, then you defend them with nonsense. I hate argueing with you. It's worse than Laihendi. When Laihendi realizes he is wrong, he just calls you a name and leaves.
And you call someone a name and stay...
The Apple is physical. Oneness is not. If you can show me oneness, I'll call you a name and then leave. But you can't. You can only point at particular things that are "one."
Can you point at rightness? You can only point at individual actions that are right.
So, yes, there is a
metaphysical
hierarchy in both of them.
Either way, who's defining your metaphysical hierarchy?
You say it either is, or isn't, but for practical purposes, how can you dispute what I might define as the 'correct' hierarchy?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Either way, who's defining your metaphysical hierarchy?
You say it either is, or isn't, but for practical purposes, how can you dispute what I might define as the 'correct' hierarchy?
Have you read my explanation of the hierarchy? No one's defining it...it's implicit in the very nature of the rights.
The first paragraph
here
is where I summed it up very basically.
Post by
Squishalot
Have you read my explanation of the hierarchy? No one's defining it...it's implicit in the very nature of the rights.
The first paragraph
here
is where I summed it up very basically.
I did read it, in fact. The problem is that you're relying on the presumption that dependency is a) one way, and b) universally acknowledged.
Which is more important, an individual's right to food and shelter and other basic necessities, or the requirement to have a safe society? Basic necessities require a safe society. But there's no point in having a safe society if people's needs aren't being serviced. Dependency is not always one way.
You may disagree that basic necessities require a safe society. Thus, the definition of dependencies are in question, so by definition (pun intended), the hierarchy needs to be defined also.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Basic necessities require a safe society.
No they don't. Is it intrinsic in the nature of bare necessities to be in a safe society? No...We can be at war with the Russians threatening to drop a nuke on us and I could still have my every need met.
However what's intrinsic in the very nature of a safe society? Well that there
be
a society. And what's intrinsic to a society? People. And what's intrinsic to having people? Having the bare necessities to keep them alive.
You see? It's not that hard to reason through these things.
Post by
Squishalot
Actually, if you consider shelter as part of the bare necessities... yes, it is intrinsic in the nature to be in a safe society. I don't think people meant "not getting rained on" by the definition of shelter.
But you're proving my point - there can be disputes over the hierarchy, for whatever reason, and you're simply papering your views over my views, and treating them as 'more right'. You're defining very precisely how your hierarchy works. So you can't say that it's just 'implicit in the nature of the rights'.
Edited for grammar.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Actually, if you consider shelter as part of the bare necessities... yes, it is intrinsic in the nature to be in a safe society. I don't think people meant "not getting rained on" by the definition of shelter.
How is shelter intrinsic to a safe society? Take my example I posted already...Russia is threatening to drop a nuke on us. The society is not safe, yet I have every bare necessity (shelter, food, clean environment, etc.)
But you're proving my point - there can be disputes over the hierarchy, for whatever reason, and you're simply papering your views over my views, and treating them as 'more right'. You're defining very precisely how your hierarchy works. So you can't say that it's just 'implicit in the nature of the rights'.
I don't think it's differing views, but more that you--sorry for being blunt--aren't considering this logically. Can you demonstrate logically that the bare necessities aren't fundamental to a safe society?
Post by
Squishalot
Because shelter isn't just about being safe from the rain. Shelter, from a 'necessity' point of view, is about having a safe place to stay, without fear of being harmed. Having Russia aiming a nuke at your town, IMO, isn't sheltered. A bus stop doesn't make a homeless shelter.
Edit:
You're arguing that the bare necessities are higher up in the hierarchy than having a safe society, since you need necessities in order to have a society.
I'm arguing that you can need a safe society to have the bare necessities of shelter, since you need a safe society to have 'shelter'.
Australia is an example of a country that appears to follow the hierarchy you're outlining - keep people right at home, then defend it from the outside.
North Korea is an example of a country that appears to follow the alternative that I'm suggesting (note - I don't necessarily believe that it's appropriate) - secure society against outsiders first, then turn your attention to internal issues about starvation and power and whatnot.
If you don't think it's logical, then it's only because it boils down to our definition of 'shelter'. Which brings everything back to definitions again.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Because shelter isn't just about being safe from the rain. Shelter, from a 'necessity' point of view, is about having a safe place to stay, without fear of being harmed. Having Russia aiming a nuke at your town, IMO, isn't sheltered. A bus stop doesn't make a homeless shelter.
...
If you don't think it's logical, then it's only because it boils down to our definition of 'shelter'. Which brings everything back to definitions again.
Yes, it brings us back to definitions. But, note, definitions have no impact on a metaphysical distinction (once we agree what terms to employ in talking about it).
And no, I don't think the root of the problem you're bringing up is in 'shelter.' It's in 'bare necessity.' When I state that 'bare necessities are more fundamental than a safe society' I'm using bare necessities as meaning those things that are necessary from human survival--so included under there would be food, water, sanitation, shelter from the elements, and possibly a few other things I'm leaving out. Humans survived the cold war quite well, as have many, many civilizations through the millennia. That is the reasoning from not including societal safety as a bare necessity.
Now would you agree that bare necessities (using the term as I am) are more fundamental than a safe society?
Post by
Squishalot
Yes, if I use your definition. But fact of the matter is, since I disagree with your definition, I see a fundamental catch 22 when trying to rank them in your hierarchy.
If I take the logical extension of what you're saying - the right to feel safe in one's belonging ranks below the need for a safe society (since it doesn't belong above it, according to you). This, I believe, would be the justification for institutions like the Gestapo and any other sort of military police or military junta - it's ok to have people living in fear, because at least the society is secure from criminal activity. Or have I misinterpreted what you're saying?
Having said that... you've answered your own question anyway, by supporting a hierarchy of rights, where freedom of speech is not at the top. So, in your mind, it *is* right for Governments to restrict freedom of speech, insofar as the exercise of that freedom infringes on other, higher ranking rights/freedoms in your hierarchy.
Post by
Squishalot
He's criticising Hyperspacerebel's hierarchy of rights, based on cultural values, i.e. social aspect, rather than legal aspect. There isn't a legally defined hierarchy, as you pointed out earlier.
But neither is it socially defined.
As I said before it's metaphysical (in its very nature). Just like 1 is metaphysically more fundamental than 2, because 2 can't exist without refence to the unit.
Just going back to this point. I think it's fair to say that from the last few posts, it's clear that a hierarchy is socially defined, at least in practice, simply because any rights in a hierarchy need to be defined in the first place, even if you rely on a dependency rule to see where a given right sits in the hierarchy.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.