So people calling political right nazis is acceptable after all. Pride marches, now banned LGBTQ books and everything connecting the subject is ok too.
Just want to see if there’s any contradiction.
I’m an advocate of freedom of speech, but words can lead to real world actions. So politicians should be aware what they’re going to say or how. Hence the cautiousness is a good word here.
If you say right are nazis or that immigrants are all criminals and rapists who want to destroy western civilization, there will be always people who will take these as truths and act by them.
Also, this is just a speculation at this point. We don’t know yet why Kirk was shot.
Sadly US has the culture of shooting people. Shootings of politicians, famous activists and just celebrities is not a new phenomenon.
Lets keep it real man. Not available at school libraries is far from banned.
Not really acceptable, and not actually true.
So I keep seeing this moral equivalence that since he said things he was shot.
I’m not going to be arrogant or hubristic to say that is flatly and incontrovertably incorrect, Wrong, completely bereft of accuracy. Phrase it how ever you like. If you agree that there is some equivalence to the things he said, and his shooting, you’re quite literally deranged from reality.
And it looks like these people value their own feels over any higher truth.
And it really reinforces my thoughts on why the left had to destroy the ultimate moral compass in order to morally ethically and socially disenfranchise their followers and succeed with with the weaponization of a political faction.
I think so too, but somehow people feel this kind of claims are acceptable when geared towards other groups (liberals, gays, immigrants etc.). I see no difference.
So saying that people should not be careful with words and then complaining about nazi -accusations is kinda contradictory.
Truth is more complicated. Saying that people can’t say untrue things would make discussion impossible. I think some things said here are more or less untrue, but I don’t claim they can’t be expressed.
There may be connection, but it’s not acceptable. You should be able to express your views, no matter how dumb they might be.
This is quite common among all humans.
Ps. I don’t know Kirk, but it doesn’t change a thing. He could have been full blown communist, but the situation would remain the same.
No. You can’t lie and still make a point. The lie invalidated the point.
No you don’t. If you did, you wouldn’t try to paraphrase something simple that doesn’t need paraphrased, rendering its meaning into what you would rather it be.
As you have here. No one said this, but you chose to interject it as the meaning of something that it is not the meaning of.
I made it very clear that truth is a higher ideal. You are willing to lie to make a point, and believe that a lie can substantiate a truth. We are not the same.
Oh! Here we go! This should be good.
Maybe for you. Hence my thoughts on the removal of ultimate moral bearing.
While most people here maintain good faith discussion, some dont. Its not surprising that one might think that things are untrue if the person has no bearing on truth. See circular firing squads and what the left has become for more on this.
Some actually prefer that others say things that are factually wobbly. The Rumple Stiltskins of the world love it.
I’m gonna chalk this up to translation error.
.
No. It isnt. If you’re willing to put your feels above the higher ideals that a society is built upon, you are woefully deranged about place in society, the world, and the universe.
That is hubris in its finest form. Lucifer Morningstar level shit to be sure.
Point was that limiting distribution of these books has been seen acceptable. But it was not a perfect example, I’ll give you that. I did not lie purposefully.
I actually asked this at the beginning. I probably misinterpreted you claiming this as you had different opinion about it.
No. Truth is the one thing that should always be seeked. But when going in to values and politics, it gets complicated.
So truth is not something that can be achieved always easily in all cases, and if you think you are 100% truthful in your opinions I would call you naive.
I definitely do think claims should be packed with facts. Sometimes people throw around unbelievably stupid shit that has no roots in reality. Then I’ll try to argue them. Usually it does not achieve anything.
Like I said, there has been some ridiculous claims and pure lies here. But I guess people can express them.
Should I assume you’re against freedom of speech then?
Words are not meaningless. People should think what they say and how.
You can express your views, even if they might be untrue. But you’ll need to be ready to have factual conversation about them. And sometimes “truth” is a complex topic.
I was trying to ask that are there untrue generalizations that people here accept, while not accepting other? And why is so?
Values can’t be factualized. Believing in human rights or God are questions of values. Not something you can’t tackle with facts.
Disagree. I just brought up that humans are subjective and flawed.
I surely hope you don’t think I’m thinking this way.
This is an interesting question which I have pondered a lot. I’m not sure if I believe any god, and I have not had religious uprising. I can have a long talk about the subject if you want.
Still I think that the core Christian values (humanity, empathy etc.) are valuable as building blocks of society. The consequences of following certain principles are better than going full nihilistic. No matter where those values come from.
So it’s completely possible to be pro christianity without being religious. Not believing to higher power meaning lack of moral is simply not true.
I’m utterly confused what you’re disagreeing me on. The nature of truth? That’s the core questions in philosophy. And you claiming that I’m not interested in truth is somehow insulting.
I think that either you don’t understand what I’m trying to say or vice versa.
That’s why people need to seek for truth and analyze on what are their values and beliefs. Philosophical and scientific education gives you tools for this.
“Gut feeling” or “emotions” are bad metrics for truth, even if we can’t be fully free from them.
If that makes you feel good, great.
I’m interested to learn how things actually are and how the world/universe/humans function.
I often feel like I’m protecting the truth, when talking to somebody who has untrue/weak claims concerning world. But honestly I think that’s a bit egotistical to feel that way.
But it’s a constant process. You can’t reach truth as a final ultimate point. You need to work constantly with it systematically. Thinking that you’re figured everything out is a first sign that you’re fucked up.
So when somebody/entity tries to paint a whole group of americans who are nothing like Nazis or Fascists, as Nazis and Fascists- would you say that they are in pursuit of truth, or guided by weak internal morals of their own design?
Or when they kill somebody that tries to uphold a common ideal that is enshrined in our countries founding doctrine-
That’s why I paired it other untrue claims tossed in politics.
Yes. But most people don’t have proper skills to actually work towards truth.
I’ll stick what I originally said. People are free to express themselves, even when they are wrong. But people need to understand that what and how they say do matter.
.
.
!
.